Terrorism, Torture, and Individual Rights

[James Heaps-Nelson]

With Congress having approved key elements of the USA PATRIOT Act, not surprisingly, the security/liberty debate has been somewhat re-ignited.

I think, overall, Americans have become too complacent or lackadaisical in the years since September 11, 2001 and the horror of the terrorist attacks that occurred that day has lapsed in many American’s minds. Despite what Rep. Ron Paul says, the reality is that Americans are safer thanks, in large part, to the new powers federal agents have at their disposal. With the new tools given to them by the USA PATRIOT Act, it is easier for law enforcement to profile, track, and intercept terrorists before they conduct acts of violence and destruction.

The powers granted to federal agencies (like the F.B.I.) will not only be used to prevent Islamic terrorism, but can also be used to halt activities on the part of other radical groups too. Extremist groups such as Earth First!, the Animal Liberation Front, Army of God and The Lambs of Christ could be subjected to monitoring as well. Doing so can force anti-abortion and eco-terrorists to think twice about bombing or committing acts of vandalism or violence on medical facilities used for surgeries or research and the people who work for them.

There are still numerous legal safeguards in place as well as internal departmental checks on the part of federal law enforcement agencies to ensure they have the right information on a suspect before agents take action. F.B.I. agents can objectively tell the difference between someone peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights and a person that knowingly supports Islamic terrorists in their cause.

Such was the case when the F.B.I. raided the homes of antiwar activists in Minnesota and Chicago back in September. The individuals subjected to the raids were the subject of investigations in which there was evidence of potential material support of terrorist groups involved on the part of specific antiwar group members resulting from travel on their part to Columbia, Lebanon, and then the Gaza Strip.

Prominent libertarians (like former Judge Andrew Napolitano and Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger) and groups (like the ACLU) criticize the usage of military tribunals to prosecute terrorists, enhanced surveillance powers and torture too, respectfully. They essentially state that not only is the USA PATRIOT Act unconstitutional but that one of the best ways to fight terrorism is to not lower our legal and ethical standards. A civilized country, they argue, that casts off acting civilized in times of conflict becomes no better than the enemy.

Being originally from Long Island, New York I distinctly remember while learning about World War II in high school that an unincorporated hamlet named Amagansett was one of two landing areas for a group of Nazi German spies. They had false documents, lots of money and were placed in the United States to conduct acts of sabotage (i.e. terrorism).

Not only did a quick-thinking member of the U.S. Coast Guard report their presence but, fortunately, one of the spies ended up getting cold feet down the line and turned himself and his companions in. Members of both spy cells were quickly arrested, tried in military courts and most were executed soon after being found guilty. Unfortunately, the warnings passed on to the Bush administration prior to the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings were not heeded and the result was death and destruction on a massive scale.

The U.S.’s last experience with trying terrorists in civilian courts was in 1993 after the first World Trade Center bombing. In addition to needlessly tying up our legal system, if civilian courts are used much of the activities used to monitor and halt terrorists would be public record. This, in turn, would give other wrong-doers the ability to learn from their predecessor's mistakes and information could be available if criminals wanted to retaliate against witnesses or people who testified for the prosecution. Military tribunals are not subject to public scrutiny, involve less legal procedure, permit more inclusive rules of evidence and, hence, make prosecutions easier.

International standards of warfare (like the ones outlined by the Geneva Convention) apply to combatants who play by the rules of war. The U.S. government is in a precarious situation where it is faced with an enemy that has no regard for human life and does not accept the international rules of battlefield conduct. Terrorists will use any means necessary to conduct acts of violence and destruction up to and including sacrificing their own lives in order to accomplish their aims.

This being the case, not only is the USA PATRIOT Act an appropriate means to prevent terror, but torture is also a legitimate means of extracting information. While the methods used on enemy combatants may seem heinous, I do not know of anyone who would not resort to some kind of torture on someone who had knowledge of a major terrorist attack and refused to voluntarily disclose when and where it would occur. Especially if it meant the usage of a nuclear device and the lives of family members or friends were at stake.

Don’t get me wrong, individual rights are inalienable and they may not be given or taken away. However, it is a mistake to treat rights as intrinsic. The choice to torture or resort to making it easier for police to do their jobs in order to stop terrorists is not utilitarian. A terrorist has voluntarily chosen to put themselves in a state of war upon countries (like the U.S.) and peaceful citizens. As a result government agents who conduct acts of torture or scrutinize terrorists via warrant-less wiretaps, monitoring bank records or other means of surveillance are doing their job of keeping the peace since terrorists pose a threat to the rights of the innocent.

Terrorists are not combatants in the sense of battlefield conflict and to treat them the same as American citizens not only will make their job easier but is also a perversion of what individual rights are all about. Rights apply only to citizens in terms of trade and peaceful conduct among each other in a social context. Those who do not respect the individual rights of others (such as terrorists) do not deserve to have theirs respected by anyone.

It is unrealistic if not outright madness for the United States government to be bound by rules of warfare or sets of laws that hinder law enforcement from protecting our individual rights while, simultaneously, being expected to combat an enemy that clearly has no regard for human life.

This is the blunt reality Americans (especially libertarians) must face up to, Israel has had to deal with almost since its creation, Barack Obama had to learn upon occupying the Oval Office and that President George W. Bush and members of Congress learned in the shadow of the World Trade Center and Pentagon Bombings on September 11th, 2001.

Mike,

The PATRIOT act is a severe infringement of freedoms. There is a whole litany of things we cannot do now as a result of the patriot act. The worst part of the act involves mandatory financial reporting. You cannot now open a bank account in excess of $10,000 without being looked over by the feds. Also, the supposed FISA safeguards of warrantless wiretaps were routinely violated by the Bush Administration. There is a good reason for procedural protections in the 4th and 8th amendments. Everyone ambitious enough to run for President is also ambitious enough to walk all over citizens' rights without a second thought.

The blunt reality is that our willingness to pour money into endless overseas occupations and a surveillance state will bring the end to freedom in America much more quickly than any group of terrorists. Rome lost its empire trying to govern the ungovernable. America is doing the same.

Jim

[Selene]

Senator Schmuck Schumer introduces back door bill to demolish second amendment

"Get collared years ago on a bogus drug charge because the oregano in your back pocket looked like was a bag of weed? Or maybe a judge back in 2006 dropped those charges because you were able to provide proof for that Adderall prescription? Under proposed legislation, it will not matter if you were innocent all along or even proven innocent by a court of law."

[kiaer.ts]

Not right, but authority.

Note to all readers: If this doesn't give you the creepy-crawlies then something's definitely wrong with you.

Note to all readers - in three short posts, Shayne reverts to spewing ad hominem.

When police chase criminals, they do so based on strictly limited and delegated authority, not on right. The government has no rights. This is not even Objectivism, for God's sake, it's junior high civics.

[Mike Renzulli]

I understand what you are saying James but (respectfully) disagree. Just because the feds have more powers of surveillance does not mean they will automatically assume you are guilty and then pay you a visit or take you to the slammer. I realize the laws may seem onerous but consider the alternative. Here in the U.S. there were Islamist charity front groups that were raising money for al-Quaeda and Hamas. Thanks to the PATRIOT Act's rules regarding money laundering most (if not all) of them have been shut down and their assets seized.

The PATRIOT Act is a very good law that balances liberty with security. I don't like many facets of it, but my greatest fear is another terrorist attack and this law enables federal agents to halt terrorists before they strike again.

Soon after the Iraq invasion I remember reading about one Islamist who expressed shock at the ferocious response the U.S. conducted after 9/11. I am sure a part of that was the result of when Bush authorized the warrantless wiretaps and the swiftness with which federal agents acted thanks to the various new powers given to them from the PATRIOT Act to halt other potential terrorist attacks.

I realize the fears of freedoms of the innocent being trampled on but there are still safeguards (such as the courts) who can rein in the President and Congress and force them to think twice about doing something that might violate the Constitution.

With Congress having approved key elements of the USA PATRIOT Act, not surprisingly, the security/liberty debate has been somewhat re-ignited.

I think, overall, Americans have become too complacent or lackadaisical in the years since September 11, 2001 and the horror of the terrorist attacks that occurred that day has lapsed in many American’s minds. Despite what Rep. Ron Paul says, the reality is that Americans are safer thanks, in large part, to the new powers federal agents have at their disposal. With the new tools given to them by the USA PATRIOT Act, it is easier for law enforcement to profile, track, and intercept terrorists before they conduct acts of violence and destruction.

The powers granted to federal agencies (like the F.B.I.) will not only be used to prevent Islamic terrorism, but can also be used to halt activities on the part of other radical groups too. Extremist groups such as Earth First!, the Animal Liberation Front, Army of God and The Lambs of Christ could be subjected to monitoring as well. Doing so can force anti-abortion and eco-terrorists to think twice about bombing or committing acts of vandalism or violence on medical facilities used for surgeries or research and the people who work for them.

There are still numerous legal safeguards in place as well as internal departmental checks on the part of federal law enforcement agencies to ensure they have the right information on a suspect before agents take action. F.B.I. agents can objectively tell the difference between someone peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights and a person that knowingly supports Islamic terrorists in their cause.

Such was the case when the F.B.I. raided the homes of antiwar activists in Minnesota and Chicago back in September. The individuals subjected to the raids were the subject of investigations in which there was evidence of potential material support of terrorist groups involved on the part of specific antiwar group members resulting from travel on their part to Columbia, Lebanon, and then the Gaza Strip.

Prominent libertarians (like former Judge Andrew Napolitano and Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger) and groups (like the ACLU) criticize the usage of military tribunals to prosecute terrorists, enhanced surveillance powers and torture too, respectfully. They essentially state that not only is the USA PATRIOT Act unconstitutional but that one of the best ways to fight terrorism is to not lower our legal and ethical standards. A civilized country, they argue, that casts off acting civilized in times of conflict becomes no better than the enemy.

Being originally from Long Island, New York I distinctly remember while learning about World War II in high school that an unincorporated hamlet named Amagansett was one of two landing areas for a group of Nazi German spies. They had false documents, lots of money and were placed in the United States to conduct acts of sabotage (i.e. terrorism).

Not only did a quick-thinking member of the U.S. Coast Guard report their presence but, fortunately, one of the spies ended up getting cold feet down the line and turned himself and his companions in. Members of both spy cells were quickly arrested, tried in military courts and most were executed soon after being found guilty. Unfortunately, the warnings passed on to the Bush administration prior to the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings were not heeded and the result was death and destruction on a massive scale.

The U.S.’s last experience with trying terrorists in civilian courts was in 1993 after the first World Trade Center bombing. In addition to needlessly tying up our legal system, if civilian courts are used much of the activities used to monitor and halt terrorists would be public record. This, in turn, would give other wrong-doers the ability to learn from their predecessor's mistakes and information could be available if criminals wanted to retaliate against witnesses or people who testified for the prosecution. Military tribunals are not subject to public scrutiny, involve less legal procedure, permit more inclusive rules of evidence and, hence, make prosecutions easier.

International standards of warfare (like the ones outlined by the Geneva Convention) apply to combatants who play by the rules of war. The U.S. government is in a precarious situation where it is faced with an enemy that has no regard for human life and does not accept the international rules of battlefield conduct. Terrorists will use any means necessary to conduct acts of violence and destruction up to and including sacrificing their own lives in order to accomplish their aims.

This being the case, not only is the USA PATRIOT Act an appropriate means to prevent terror, but torture is also a legitimate means of extracting information. While the methods used on enemy combatants may seem heinous, I do not know of anyone who would not resort to some kind of torture on someone who had knowledge of a major terrorist attack and refused to voluntarily disclose when and where it would occur. Especially if it meant the usage of a nuclear device and the lives of family members or friends were at stake.

Don’t get me wrong, individual rights are inalienable and they may not be given or taken away. However, it is a mistake to treat rights as intrinsic. The choice to torture or resort to making it easier for police to do their jobs in order to stop terrorists is not utilitarian. A terrorist has voluntarily chosen to put themselves in a state of war upon countries (like the U.S.) and peaceful citizens. As a result government agents who conduct acts of torture or scrutinize terrorists via warrant-less wiretaps, monitoring bank records or other means of surveillance are doing their job of keeping the peace since terrorists pose a threat to the rights of the innocent.

Terrorists are not combatants in the sense of battlefield conflict and to treat them the same as American citizens not only will make their job easier but is also a perversion of what individual rights are all about. Rights apply only to citizens in terms of trade and peaceful conduct among each other in a social context. Those who do not respect the individual rights of others (such as terrorists) do not deserve to have theirs respected by anyone.

It is unrealistic if not outright madness for the United States government to be bound by rules of warfare or sets of laws that hinder law enforcement from protecting our individual rights while, simultaneously, being expected to combat an enemy that clearly has no regard for human life.

This is the blunt reality Americans (especially libertarians) must face up to, Israel has had to deal with almost since its creation, Barack Obama had to learn upon occupying the Oval Office and that President George W. Bush and members of Congress learned in the shadow of the World Trade Center and Pentagon Bombings on September 11th, 2001.

Mike,

The PATRIOT act is a severe infringement of freedoms. There is a whole litany of things we cannot do now as a result of the patriot act. The worst part of the act involves mandatory financial reporting. You cannot now open a bank account in excess of $10,000 without being looked over by the feds. Also, the supposed FISA safeguards of warrantless wiretaps were routinely violated by the Bush Administration. There is a good reason for procedural protections in the 4th and 8th amendments. Everyone ambitious enough to run for President is also ambitious enough to walk all over citizens' rights without a second thought.

The blunt reality is that our willingness to pour money into endless overseas occupations and a surveillance state will bring the end to freedom in America much more quickly than any group of terrorists. Rome lost its empire trying to govern the ungovernable. America is doing the same.

Jim

Edited March 24, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Mike Renzulli]

Spare me, Shayne. You hear all about the bad things feds do (which are wrong) but never the good. I will bet you a nickel that there are more instances of the feds halting terrorists from being able to blow up buildings or kill civilians. You never hear about it probably because they want other terrorist cells to think they are still under their radar.

So while your concerns for the innocent people listed in the Cato Raid Map are understandable, consider if that map was of terrorist attacks such as shootings or car bombings. I wonder then if you would whistle the same tune.

Hey Mike, why don't you study this thoroughly and then get back to us about who the real terrorists are:

http://www.cato.org/raidmap

Then we can talk about whether or not you are supporting terrorism with these posts of yours and what's to be done about it.

Shayne

[sjw]

Not right, but authority.

Note to all readers: If this doesn't give you the creepy-crawlies then something's definitely wrong with you.

Note to all readers - in three short posts, Shayne reverts to spewing ad hominem.

When police chase criminals, they do so based on strictly limited and delegated authority, not on right. The government has no rights. This is not even Objectivism, for God's sake, it's junior high civics.

Bullshit. A person either acts by right or what they are doing is committing a crime. A policeman doing a legitimate duty is acting by right delegated to him or by his own right (just as we all have a right to stop a crime), not "authority", which is the word an abject statist uses to describe this.

Shayne

-Throw your "civics" class in a garbage bin.

[sjw]

The trouble with anarchists is that they only want to look at the bad. The trouble with people like you is that you only want to look at the good. The wisdom of the best Founders was to restrain government with the Bill of Rights, to recognize that "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

Shayne

-Go back to England, traitors!

Spare me, Shayne. You hear all about the bad things feds do (which are wrong) but never the good. I will bet you a nickel that there are more instances of the feds halting terrorists from being able to blow up buildings or kill civilians. You never hear about it probably because they want other terrorist cells to think they are still under their radar.

So while your concerns for the innocent people listed in the Cato Raid Map are understandable, consider if that map was of terrorist attacks such as shootings or car bombings. I wonder then if you would whistle the same tune.

Hey Mike, why don't you study this thoroughly and then get back to us about who the real terrorists are:

http://www.cato.org/raidmap

Then we can talk about whether or not you are supporting terrorism with these posts of yours and what's to be done about it.

Shayne

Edited March 24, 2011 by sjw

[kiaer.ts]

Not right, but authority.

Note to all readers: If this doesn't give you the creepy-crawlies then something's definitely wrong with you.

Note to all readers - in three short posts, Shayne reverts to spewing ad hominem.

When police chase criminals, they do so based on strictly limited and delegated authority, not on right. The government has no rights. This is not even Objectivism, for God's sake, it's junior high civics.

Bullshit. A person either acts by right or what they are doing is committing a crime. A policeman doing a legitimate duty is acting by right delegated to him or by his own right (just as we all have a right to stop a crime), not "authority", which is the word an abject statist uses to describe this.

Shayne

-Throw your "civics" class in a garbage bin.

So, you say the government has "rights," and yet you call me call me the statist for saying it may only do what it has been authorized to do? I am afraid you'll need a more powerful obscenity than bullshit to convince me to leave my senses and forget the plain meanings of words. Unfortunately I won't be reading your further responses.

[sjw]

So, you say the government has "rights,"

No moron, I say the policeman has rights.

Shayne

[anthony]

"Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act.

A private individual may do anything except that which is legally FORBIDDEN; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally PERMITTED."

[AR: The Nature of Government]

Just saying.

[Richard Wiig]

Torture is a terrible thing, Brant, a terrible thing. It's not something I'd like to do, or ever be in the position to have to do it. What do you want to hear about it, exactly? Anything I could tell you you already know.

One thing I can tell you is that some lives are worth more than others.

Richard

[sjw]

"Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act.

A private individual may do anything except that which is legally FORBIDDEN; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally PERMITTED."

[AR: The Nature of Government]

Just saying.

A government official is a "private individual" and may take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others).

Just saying.

Shayne

Edited March 24, 2011 by sjw

[anthony]

"Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act.

A private individual may do anything except that which is legally FORBIDDEN; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally PERMITTED."

[AR: The Nature of Government]

Just saying.

A government official is a "private individual" and may take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others).

Just saying.

Shayne

Is there no distinction between individuals in an officially public capacity, and private individuals, in your estimation?

Just askin'

Tony

[sjw]

Is there no distinction between individuals in an officially public capacity, and private individuals, in your estimation?

With respect to rights in general? Absolutely not. This really should be obvious to you. You don't lose rights when you go work for the government; on the contrary, added to your already existing rights are the additional rights to act in accordance to the rights voluntarily delegated to you by others. You have more rights not less. If this is a scary concept for you then that's good, you should be scared about the powers you delegate to government (see the Washington quote above). In addition to being flat out wrong, Rand's concept isn't as scary either, and that's definitely a bad thing.

With respect to particular job function? Obviously. But that's a trivial question.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

Senator Schmuck Schumer introduces back door bill to demolish second amendment

"Get collared years ago on a bogus drug charge because the oregano in your back pocket looked like was a bag of weed? Or maybe a judge back in 2006 dropped those charges because you were able to provide proof for that Adderall prescription? Under proposed legislation, it will not matter if you were innocent all along or even proven innocent by a court of law."

When Alfonse Dimatto addressed Jewish Groups in New York, he referred to Schumer as Shmeckle-Head.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Is there no distinction between individuals in an officially public capacity, and private individuals, in your estimation?

With respect to rights in general? Absolutely not. This really should be obvious to you. You don't lose rights when you go work for the government; on the contrary, added to your already existing rights are the additional rights to act in accordance to the rights voluntarily delegated to you by others. You have more rights not less. If this is a scary concept for you then that's good, you should be scared about the powers you delegate to government (see the Washington quote above). In addition to being flat out wrong, Rand's concept isn't as scary either, and that's definitely a bad thing.

With respect to particular job function? Obviously. But that's a trivial question.

Shayne

Shayne,

No matter how I read this it seems contradictory: A public official gets a double allotment of rights(!) (his private, and his delegated ones) - but it is also an obviously trivial question that he is curtailed in his duties (his "job function".)

So is he free to act without restriction, or not?

Rand: "The source of the government's authority is "the consent of the governed". This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or AGENT of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights DELEGATED to it by the citizens for a specific purpose."

This is simple and unequivocal, and nothing new to any of us, I am certain.

Tony

(Realise that I've veered o/t - sorry, Mike.)

Edited March 24, 2011 by whYNOT

[Mike Renzulli]

I will let Robert Bidinotto do the talking in which an essay/comments he posted on Rebirth of Reason beautifully contrasts/compares the libertarian/anarchist view of rights with the Objectivist:

One of the most common differences between (many) libertarians and Objectivists is their commitments to entirely differing conceptions of "rights." Many libertarians (especially anarchists) adhere to an intrinsicist (platonic) conception of rights, as being an essential aspect of human nature. By contrast, Objectivists uphold a contextualist view of rights, as being an xtension of the ethics of rational self-interest into social situations. By the intrinsicist view, rights are something you just have. By the contextualist view, rights are moral principles you recognize and apply.

These diverging views of rights and their source explain many of the political arguments we see here on SOLO. If you believe "rights" are essences of individuals, something they just have, then there are no circumstances in which they disappear. From this premise, it's a short step for anarchists to reject such vital governmental powers as arrest, subpoena, emergency curfews or roadblocks or health quarantines, and contextual limitations on weapons of self-defense (e. g., outlawing private possession and/or use of machine guns, bombs and tanks in "self-defense"). Anarchists reject even defensive wars, because innocent civilians (who are analogous to "human shields" or hostages held by aggressor nations) ill likely be harmed during our defensive efforts. They even reject government itself because, being a final arbiter of force, government necessarily compels compliance and/or participation even of unwilling individuals, and thus allegedly "violates their inherent rights" to refuse participation.

By contrast, Objectivists see such governmental activities as necessary and proper extensions of the morality of rational self-interest into a social framework, which any valid theory of rights must therefore incorporate and accommodate.

Don’t get me wrong, individual rights are inalienable and they may not be given or taken away. However, it is a mistake to treat rights as intrinsic. The choice to torture or resort to making it easier for police to do their jobs in order to stop terrorists is not utilitarian.

Rights are inalienable but not intrinsic? What does that mean? Does that mean that if a cop thinks there are drugs at your house but has the wrong address, that it's OK for him to bust down your door in the middle of the night for the "utilitarian purpose" of making sure you don't flush something down the toilet? And then to shoot you if you mistake him for a criminal? There's a reason the wise founders created the Bill of Rights, and Objectivists who throw them into the trash can are not true Americans, they should hide their heads in shame and move back to England.

Leaving aside the issue of cruel and unusual punishments (in a system that routinely convicts innocents and puts them on death row), the question here is whether it is appropriate to apply any sort of punishment to a person who has not been found guilty through due and public process. You say "terrorist" when you see a mere human that the government pointed their finger at. This is a very gullible and dangerous attitude.

Shayne

Edited March 24, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Selene]

A person either acts by right or what they are doing is committing a crime. A policeman doing a legitimate duty is acting by right delegated to him or by his own right (just as we all have a right to stop a crime), not "authority", which is the word an abject statist uses to describe this.

Shayne: In your quote above, please clarify for me who, or what, is doing the delegating of that "right?" Thanks.

Mike: Heller notes, on page 138 of her book, that:

"The first thing right-thinking people must understand , she [Ayn] explained, in the manifesto*, is that man is an independent entity, an end unto himself, and never a means to an end. Since this is so, he has certain inalienable rights. These are not granted by any state, society, or collective, but rather they shield against all governments and societies. They constitute all 'Man's protection against all other men' and are absolute."

*from the 33 page, "polemical" essay, The Individualist Manifesto.

This appears to be the intrinsicist view.

Adam

Edited March 24, 2011 by Selene

[sjw]

Parroting "rights are contextual" doesn't identify what you mean when you call them "inalienable." Are you not aware of this, or are you just trying to see if your Jedi mind trick works?

Shayne

I will let Robert Bidinotto do the talking in which an essay/comments he posted on Rebirth of Reason beautifully contrasts/compares the libertarian/anarchist view of rights with the Objectivist:

One of the most common differences between (many) libertarians and Objectivists is their commitments to entirely differing conceptions of "rights." Many libertarians (especially anarchists) adhere to an intrinsicist (platonic) conception of rights, as being an essential aspect of human nature. By contrast, Objectivists uphold a contextualist view of rights, as being an xtension of the ethics of rational self-interest into social situations. By the intrinsicist view, rights are something you just have. By the contextualist view, rights are moral principles you recognize and apply.

These diverging views of rights and their source explain many of the political arguments we see here on SOLO. If you believe "rights" are essences of individuals, something they just have, then there are no circumstances in which they disappear. From this premise, it's a short step for anarchists to reject such vital governmental powers as arrest, subpoena, emergency curfews or roadblocks or health quarantines, and contextual limitations on weapons of self-defense (e. g., outlawing private possession and/or use of machine guns, bombs and tanks in "self-defense"). Anarchists reject even defensive wars, because innocent civilians (who are analogous to "human shields" or hostages held by aggressor nations) ill likely be harmed during our defensive efforts. They even reject government itself because, being a final arbiter of force, government necessarily compels compliance and/or participation even of unwilling individuals, and thus allegedly "violates their inherent rights" to refuse participation.

By contrast, Objectivists see such governmental activities as necessary and proper extensions of the morality of rational self-interest into a social framework, which any valid theory of rights must therefore incorporate and accommodate.

Don’t get me wrong, individual rights are inalienable and they may not be given or taken away. However, it is a mistake to treat rights as intrinsic. The choice to torture or resort to making it easier for police to do their jobs in order to stop terrorists is not utilitarian.

Rights are inalienable but not intrinsic? What does that mean? Does that mean that if a cop thinks there are drugs at your house but has the wrong address, that it's OK for him to bust down your door in the middle of the night for the "utilitarian purpose" of making sure you don't flush something down the toilet? And then to shoot you if you mistake him for a criminal? There's a reason the wise founders created the Bill of Rights, and Objectivists who throw them into the trash can are not true Americans, they should hide their heads in shame and move back to England.

Leaving aside the issue of cruel and unusual punishments (in a system that routinely convicts innocents and puts them on death row), the question here is whether it is appropriate to apply any sort of punishment to a person who has not been found guilty through due and public process. You say "terrorist" when you see a mere human that the government pointed their finger at. This is a very gullible and dangerous attitude.

Shayne

Edited March 24, 2011 by sjw

[sjw]

Shayne,

No matter how I read this it seems contradictory: A public official gets a double allotment of rights(!) (his private, and his delegated ones) - but it is also an obviously trivial question that he is curtailed in his duties (his "job function".)

So is he free to act without restriction, or not?

If you pay someone to walk your dog, you just granted him the right to do that -- the moral prerogative to take your dog for bit. Sole control of your dog was formerly your right, now he has some portion of that right for some limited purpose. It's not complicated. If he had taken your dog for a walk before you consented, then that would be theft, after it's not, precisely because of the limited delegation or transfer to him from you of your right. Now if you sold him the dog, then that's an even bigger transfer -- now you have no right to walk that dog anymore.

And no, it's not a "double allotment of rights", obviously. It's just those rights you transferred -- the right to walk the dog. Or the right to the dog.

It's one thing when you buy into a shoddy theory of rights, it's quite another when you can't entertain a new thought, sheesh.

Rand: "The source of the government's authority is "the consent of the governed". This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or AGENT of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights DELEGATED to it by the citizens for a specific purpose."

This is simple and unequivocal, and nothing new to any of us, I am certain.

Tony

(Realise that I've veered o/t - sorry, Mike.)

This is not the same quote you had before, and I'd rather not play the game of "let's see if I can find a quote that obscures the damage done by the previous quote." That other quote was quite clear and that is what I was responding to.

Shayne

[sjw]

A person either acts by right or what they are doing is committing a crime. A policeman doing a legitimate duty is acting by right delegated to him or by his own right (just as we all have a right to stop a crime), not "authority", which is the word an abject statist uses to describe this.

Shayne: In your quote above, please clarify for me who, or what, is doing the delegating of that "right?" Thanks.

Mike: Heller notes, on page 138 of her book, that:

"The first thing right-thinking people must understand , she [Ayn] explained, in the manifesto*, is that man is an independent entity, an end unto himself, and never a means to an end. Since this is so, he has certain inalienable rights. These are not granted by any state, society, or collective, but rather they shield against all governments and societies. They constitute all 'Man's protection against all other men' and are absolute."

*from the 33 page, "polemical" essay, The Individualist Manifesto.

This appears to be the intrinsicist view.

Adam

I'm not sure why you're showing me that quote, it seems like Mike R ought to have a whack at it. It looks like a good quote and it's unequivocal: "man is an independent entity, an end unto himself, and never a means to an end. Since this is so, he has certain inalienable rights." This does not sound like Mike R's wishy-washy "rights are contextual, I'm from the government, I'm here to help, so just lay there while I tazer you over and over..."

For the life of me I don't know why any Objectivist would say "rights are contextual" in ANY context. Rand NEVER said anything like that did she? It's pure crazy Peikoff. On the contrary, she held rights to be inalienable and absolute and one could only be interfered with if one undertook a criminal act against another; the non-initiation of force principle.

And the way these crazies are using this "rights are contextual." They aren't using it like a contextual principle at all, where in fact you would explicitly name what elements of the context cause something to go one way or the other and identify the underlying principle that determines that. They just use it as a magic incantation to support heinous crimes of the State against the Individual. These Objectivists are as bad as Nazis. It's treasonous to Objectivism and traitorous to America.

One doesn't say "Newton's laws are contextual" and then wave a magic wand and something floats in air, one only says that in a very specific, rigorous context, to explain precisely why the behavior in reality is one way or another, not as a cop-out like they're doing with rights here.

Shayne

-America is based on inalienable rights! Take your "contextual rights theory" back to England, traitors!

Edited March 24, 2011 by sjw

[Mike Renzulli]

Shayne,

The fact that you are twisting the statement goes to show me that you have only this manner in order to try to argue. It's not my fault that I adequately rebutted your premise and you have nothing to respond to it with except slander.

If you read the statement you would see Bidinotto is pointing out:

Objectivists uphold a contextualist view of rights, as being an extension of the ethics of rational self-interest into social situations. By the intrinsicist view, rights are something you just have. By the contextualist view, rights are moral principles you recognize and apply.

Robert is talking in terms of ethics. When discussing the view of government it should (and in many cases does to this day) recognizes individual rights as absolutes. Doing this prevents it from flagrantly violating individual rights yet it retains the power to halt someone from knowingly violating the individual rights of others.

Thanks very much for your concession that I have debunked your view of rights or arguments in contrast to mine. Anything more stated by you will be nothing more than comedy relief from here on out.

Parroting "rights are contextual" doesn't identify what you mean when you call them "inalienable." Are you not aware of this, or are you just trying to see if your Jedi mind trick works?

Shayne

Edited March 24, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[sjw]

Where did Rand say that rights were contextual? Here's my guess: Peikoff just made it up so he could cover his ass about his wiping it with the Bill of Rights, and then Bidinotto just second-handedly aped Peikoff. But I don't know, you tell me. Where did Rand ever hem and haw about rights being "contextual"? I think she was usually crystal clear that it is absolutely wrong to initiate force, i.e., to violate rights.

This was never an issue for Objectivists before 9/11, but the worse government violates its own Constitution, the more Objectivists have to corrupt Objectivism to match.

Shayne

-Does your self-delusion know no bounds?

Shayne,

The fact that you are twisting the statement goes to show me that you have only this manner in order to try to argue. It's not my fault that I adequately rebutted your premise and you have nothing to respond to it with except slander.

If you read the statement you would see Bidinotto is pointing out:

Objectivists uphold a contextualist view of rights, as being an extension of the ethics of rational self-interest into social situations. By the intrinsicist view, rights are something you just have. By the contextualist view, rights are moral principles you recognize and apply.

Robert is talking in terms of ethics. When discussing the view of government it should (and in many cases does to this day) recognizes individual rights as absolutes. Doing this prevents it flagrantly violating individual rights.

Thanks very much for your concession that I have debunked your view of rights or arguments in contrast to mine. Anything more stated by you will be nothing more than comedy relief from here on out.

Parroting "rights are contextual" doesn't identify what you mean when you call them "inalienable." Are you not aware of this, or are you just trying to see if your Jedi mind trick works?

Shayne

Edited March 24, 2011 by sjw

[Selene]

A person either acts by right or what they are doing is committing a crime. A policeman doing a legitimate duty is acting by right delegated to him or by his own right (just as we all have a right to stop a crime), not "authority", which is the word an abject statist uses to describe this.

Shayne: In your quote above, please clarify for me who, or what, is doing the delegating of that "right?" Thanks.

Mike: Heller notes, on page 138 of her book, that:

"The first thing right-thinking people must understand , she [Ayn] explained, in the manifesto*, is that man is an independent entity, an end unto himself, and never a means to an end. Since this is so, he has certain inalienable rights. These are not granted by any state, society, or collective, but rather they shield against all governments and societies. They constitute all 'Man's protection against all other men' and are absolute."

*from the 33 page, "polemical" essay, The Individualist Manifesto.

This appears to be the intrinsicist view.

Adam

I'm not sure why you're showing me that quote, it seems like Mike R ought to have a whack at it. It looks like a good quote and it's unequivocal: "man is an independent entity, an end unto himself, and never a means to an end. Since this is so, he has certain inalienable rights." This does not sound like Mike R's wishy-washy "rights are contextual, I'm from the government, I'm here to help, so just lay there while I tazer you over and over..."

For the life of me I don't know why any Objectivist would say "rights are contextual" in ANY context. Rand NEVER said anything like that did she? It's pure crazy Peikoff. On the contrary, she held rights to be inalienable and absolute and one could only be interfered with if one undertook a criminal act against another; the non-initiation of force principle.

And the way these crazies are using this "rights are contextual." They aren't using it like a contextual principle at all, where in fact you would explicitly name what elements of the context cause something to go one way or the other and identify the underlying principle that determines that. They just use it as a magic incantation to support heinous crimes of the State against the Individual. These Objectivists are as bad as Nazis. It's treasonous to Objectivism and traitorous to America.

One doesn't say "Newton's laws are contextual" and then wave a magic wand and something floats in air, one only says that in a very specific, rigorous context, to explain precisely why the behavior in reality is one way or another, not as a cop-out like they're doing with rights here.

Shayne

-America is based on inalienable rights! Take your "contextual rights theory" back to England, traitors!

Shayne:

The quote with the blue highlight is yours and I wanted your clarification on just that quote.

The quote after the word Mike, is addressed to Mike and specifically addresses what you, I and Ayn agree on which is that rights are not contextual and that is why I wanted Mike's response, since he posted the Bidinotto as being reflective of Mike's views on "rights."

Adam

Edited March 24, 2011 by Selene

[sjw]

New thread regarding those who defame Objectivism by claiming it holds that "rights are contextual": http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10353

Shayne