Terrorism, Torture, and Individual Rights

[sjw]

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

Technically my view is that you can transfer a portion of your rights in exchange for a portion of another's. For example, I have a right to a dollar, and a grocery store has a right to its candy bars, and we can consent to trade these rights.

In the case of government, I have a right to self defense and justice, and (in theory -- this is not how it actually works nowadays) I can exchange some portion of those rights to government to adjudicate cases rather than me doing that myself. For example, in a state of nature, if you steal my food, I have a right to get it back from you using the least force necessary, and I have a right to take steps to make sure you don't do it anymore. This is my right to justice. In a state of civilization, we delegate this right to government in order to prevent various inferior results (compared to good government) that such individual pursuit of justice would result in.

One has to be careful when one starts talking in terms of transfer of rights because if you don't handle it right you can conclude things like "he traded ten cents for all of his rights", and I take due care with this concept in my book.

Shayne

[Mike Renzulli]

I don't think so since Rand is not taking the view of consistency for the sake of being consistent. Like I explained to Shayne, the view of rights Robert outlines is how it is among the ethics of others (i.e. how people should live). I think this is much in line with what Ms. Rand had in mind as well.

In the Objectivist view of government, it respects (and in many cases does in real life) a person's rights as absolute until and unless some person or group is determined to pose a threat to the individual rights of others.

When it is objectively determined by a police agency that a group or person is a threat then it may take action to stop them. That's what we are seeing with the U.S. government's activities to halt terrorism now.

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 Mike Renzulli

[anthony]

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.

I do not know how Bidinotto arrived at "O'ists uphold a contextualist view of rights".

Checking through Rand, the term she always used was, not "contextual", and not "intrinsic", but 'inalienable'. That is, "impossible to transfer ownership of".

On the next part of rights "being an extension of the ethics of rational self-interest into social situations", he is undoubtedly right.

I agree with Adam, that this is as close as a cat's whisker to intrinsic individual rights.

The only contextualism I can see, is one's negative right to interfere with the rights of another.

Tony

[sjw]

I don't think so since Rand is not taking the view of consistency for the sake of being consistent. Like I explained to Shayne, the view of rights Robert outlines is how it is among the ethics of others (i.e. how people should live).

In the Objectivist view of government, it views (and in many cases does in real life) respect a person's rights as absolute until and unless some person or group is determined to pose a threat to the individual rights of others.

When it is objectively determined that a group or person is a threat then it may take action to stop them. That's what we are seeing with the U.S. government's activities to halt terrorism now.

Observe the concrete-bound understanding of rights here. On MR's view, if a sniper takes out a kidnapper and accidentally hit a hostage, then the sniper violated the hostages rights. But, he happily thinks, it's OK, because "rights are contextual."

On a principled understanding of rights, the sniper is defending the hostages and any inadvertent damage to them (assuming he takes due care) is an absolute violation of rights -- by the kidnapper.

Shayne

[sjw]

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.

I do not know how Bidinotto arrived at "O'ists uphold a contextualist view of rights".

Checking through Rand, the term she always used was, not "contextual", and not "intrinsic", but 'inalienable'. That is, "impossible to transfer ownership of".

On the next part of rights "being an extension of the ethics of rational self-interest into social situations", he is undoubtedly right.

I agree with Adam, that this is as close as a cat's whisker to intrinsic individual rights.

The only contextualism I can see, is one's negative right to interfere with the rights of another.

Tony

This confusion these Objectivism-defamers are engaging in is only possible because Rand's theory of rights was vague. But it wasn't that vague, there's no excuse for what they are doing here.

On my view, a right is a human action that does not interfere with the equal rights (i.e., the non-interfering actions) of another. On this view, rights are neither intrinsic nor contextual, they are metaphysical. They're not a "Plato's Form", they are a real living human act. The abstractions of rights is merely the categorization of the kinds of actions people might engage in, but the actions themselves are real.

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]

Shayne,

I share your bemusement at "contextual rights", but I want to get back to the above statement.

Do you, or not, agree with it?

Tony

[Mikee]

"Rights" are not intrinsic or inherent. They are inalienable when men of reason, and of honor, and of violence say they are. There is no magic invisible barrier, no intrinsic property of frightened self absorbed individuals that protects them from being violated by barbaric predators that happen to have the shape of human beings. It requires men of violence and honor to do it for them.

[Selene]

Shayne:

I am not going to get into a debate as to Ayn's being "vague" as to man's [man being the single individual] rights. Unless you have a definition of the word vague that we can both agree too one hundred percent, and it would have to be one that I am not aware of, Ayn was certainly not vague as to man's rights.

Adam

[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]

Shayne,

I share your bemusement at "contextual rights", but I want to get back to the above statement.

Do you, or not, agree with it?

Tony

I am confused at your confusion, I thought I'd answered this quite clearly already. A government official is a HUMAN BEING and may do everything you can do, and in addition, he can take actions in the pursuit of (say) justice THAT YOU CANNOT DO. He clearly has a wider sanction of action than you do. This is elementary.

Shayne

[Selene]

"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]

Shayne,

I share your bemusement at "contextual rights", but I want to get back to the above statement.

Do you, or not, agree with it?

Tony

I am confused at your confusion, I thought I'd answered this quite clearly already. A government official is a HUMAN BEING and may do everything you can do, and in addition, he can take actions in the pursuit of (say) justice THAT YOU CANNOT DO. He clearly has a wider sanction of action than you do. This is elementary.

Shayne

OK Watson, then I will wait until you graduate High School. [THIS IS AN ACTUAL JOKE AND NOT INTENDED AS AD HOMINEM PHIL]

[sjw]

Shayne:

I am not going to get into a debate as to Ayn's being "vague" as to man's [man being the single individual] rights. Unless you have a definition of the word vague that we can both agree too one hundred percent, and it would have to be one that I am not aware of, Ayn was certainly not vague as to man's rights.

Adam

Such a debate is not relevant to this thread, but yes, her theory is vague, and that's part of why self-proclaimed "Objectivists" are saying "rights are contextual." But that is not the only reason and it is not the most important reason. The most important reason is that they are abject PRAGMATISTS and FOOLS.

Shayne

[sjw]

"Rights" are not intrinsic or inherent. They are inalienable when men of reason, and of honor, and of violence say they are.

Rights are not granted to you by other men, they are a consequence of your own nature -- "All men are created equal..."

Your view is more of a Nietzschean view of rights than an Objectivist one.

Shayne

-Holy hell!!! What is going on here with these bizarre interpretations of Rand?

[sjw]

Shayne:

I am not going to get into a debate as to Ayn's being "vague" as to man's [man being the single individual] rights. Unless you have a definition of the word vague that we can both agree too one hundred percent, and it would have to be one that I am not aware of, Ayn was certainly not vague as to man's rights.

Adam

Such a debate is not relevant to this thread, but yes, her theory is vague, and that's part of why self-proclaimed "Objectivists" are saying "rights are contextual."

Ayn Rand associated rights with human action, but the actual fact is that human action is the substance of rights. On the view that rights are metaphysical, the "rights are contextual" view becomes impossible to sustain.

The "rights are metaphysical" view is analogous to the view that the concept of "mass", while being abstract, refers to real physical qualities. Rights too can be abstract and teleological, and also be abstracted from concrete human action, specifically, non-interfering human action.

Shayne

[Mikee]

"Rights" are not intrinsic or inherent. They are inalienable when men of reason, and of honor, and of violence say they are.

Rights are not granted to you by other men, they are a consequence of your own nature -- "All men are created equal..."

Your view is more of a Nietzschean view of rights than an Objectivist one.

Shayne

-Holy hell!!! What is going on here with these bizarre interpretations of Rand?

Your wheels are spinning but not in contact with the road. Robert Bidinotto has it exactly right and I believe is in perfect agreement with Ayn Rand.

Of course other men grant you your rights by their recognition of them. Reason is primary. Rights have no meaning except that they be recognized by other men and other men are willing to fight in defense of them. Nature, the Universe, certainly doesn't care if you exist or not.

[sjw]

Rights have no meaning except that they be recognized by other men and other men are willing to fight in defense of them.

What a murderous view. A defenseless child certainly has rights, and his rights certainly have meaning, regardless of whether other men come to the defense of them.

Your view completely eviscerates Rand's moral view of rights.

Shayne

[Mike Renzulli]

Just by making this statement goes to show you don't know what rights are and is another feather in my cap showing how you (yet again) like to argue since you have no merit to your own morally bankrupt intrinsic philosophy (if any).

If you knew anything individual rights (which it's obvious you don't) you would know that rights only apply to entities who have the capacity/ability of deliberation and choice (i.e. humans). With humans reason is our primary means of survival which is why rights can't and shouldn't be granted to other entities who do not such as forms of nature (i.e. animals, trees, etc.).

Humans have a right to life which is why children (according to rights theory) have a right to live but not full rights until they are fully adults since it is recognized that parents are their guardians until a certain age. The incapacitated and mentally retarded are in a similar situation as well.

Not just in rights theory but in terms of actual conduct seen today.

Rights have no meaning except that they be recognized by other men and other men are willing to fight in defense of them.

What a murderous view. A defenseless child certainly has rights, and his rights certainly have meaning, regardless of whether other men come to the defense of them.

Your view completely eviscerates Rand's moral view of rights.

Shayne

Edited March 24, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[sjw]

So now it's "morally bankrupt" to claim that a child has rights! Wow. Where do we go from here.

Shayne

Just by making this statement goes to show you don't know what rights are and is another feather in my cap showing how you (yet again) like to argue since you have no merit to your own morally bankrupt intrinsic philosophy (if any).

If you knew anything individual rights (which it's obvious you don't) you would know that rights only apply to entities (i.e. humans) who have the capacity/ability of deliberation and choice. With humans reason is our primary means of survival which is why rights can't and shouldn't be granted to other entities who do not such as forms of nature (i.e. animals, trees, etc.).

Humans have a right to life which is why children (according to rights theory) have a right to live but not full rights until they are fully adults since it is recognized that parents are their guardians until a certain age. The incapacitated and mentally retarded are in a similar situation as well.

Not just in rights theory but in terms of actual conduct seen today.

Rights have no meaning except that they be recognized by other men and other men are willing to fight in defense of them.

What a murderous view. A defenseless child certainly has rights, and his rights certainly have meaning, regardless of whether other men come to the defense of them.

Your view completely eviscerates Rand's moral view of rights.

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

"Rights" are not intrinsic or inherent. They are inalienable when men of reason, and of honor, and of violence say they are. There is no magic invisible barrier, no intrinsic property of frightened self absorbed individuals that protects them from being violated by barbaric predators that happen to have the shape of human beings. It requires men of violence and honor to do it for them.

!

[Brant Gaede]

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

Torture is in part an interrogation technique done with the application or its threat of mental and physical pain. Mental pain can stand on its own. Physical pain in this context will be mixed up with mental. Torture is done by a few sadists for pleasure. Torture is also done not to get information but to degrade and dehumanize, control the subject. For getting information, the results are both suspect and poor while it displaces other approaches and tends to create a general backlash. It is also obsolete. You can give someone a certain substance and quickly they'll get verbal diarrhea--he won't be able to stop talking. I don't remember what this is and have no interest in going back to find where I read it. Now, if you'd like to find a place for torture within Rand's ethics of emergencies, start a thread, be my guest. I won't participate.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Children and the infirm have rights too. They may not be able to exercise some rights that able-bodied adults commonly do, but in no way does that mean anyone would be entitled to initiate force against them. Rights also are not intrinsic; the need for rights considering the nature of the human organism is intrinsic. In answer to this need rights were philosophically invented and their protection put into law. Moral law is anarchy. My opinion, your opinion, but legal law wins the argument qua what the law is at any given time. It's a monopoly. It's a wall of many bricks. Brick(s) in, brick(s) out. Another such wall is another country. They compete to some extent depending on various circumstances, but they do not overlap. Local, state and the federal governments are all part of the same American system. To a great extent there are horizontal competitions of city to city and state to state. Low taxes and regulations can pull in wealth and people.

Rights are moral constructs and appertain to free choices and unforced minds. No one grants them to anybody, much less a government. Government must violate rights to some extent. It's not right, but we should be so lucky to be addressing that as a practical matter. We won't in the lifetime of anyone living and their children's and their children's children. The true value of libertarian anarchism is the psychological separation of man and state and all that jingoistic nationalism and brain-deadening patriotism. I'm willing to be patriotic if the country deserves it. Unfortunately, it's now all on a case by case basis.

--Brant

[Richard Wiig]

"Rights" are not intrinsic or inherent. They are inalienable when men of reason, and of honor, and of violence say they are.

Rights are not granted to you by other men, they are a consequence of your own nature -- "All men are created equal..."

Your view is more of a Nietzschean view of rights than an Objectivist one.

Shayne

-Holy hell!!! What is going on here with these bizarre interpretations of Rand?

They are moral principles and, as such, you can choose to adopt those principles and deal with other men in accordance with them, or not. If you do not, if you choose to deal with other men by violating those moral principles, then you have no rights. Rights are not just a consequence of your nature, like taking a shit is a consequence of your nature, they are products of the mind. They are tools for living in accordance with the requirements of human nature, so in that sense they are contextual. They are dependent upon a context in which men think, identify, and adopt.

Richard

[Richard Wiig]

Torture is in part an interrogation technique done with the application or its threat of mental and physical pain. Mental pain can stand on its own. Physical pain in this context will be mixed up with mental. Torture is done by a few sadists for pleasure. Torture is also done not to get information but to degrade and dehumanize, control the subject. For getting information, the results are both suspect and poor while it displaces other approaches and tends to create a general backlash. It is also obsolete. You can give someone a certain substance and quickly they'll get verbal diarrhea--he won't be able to stop talking. I don't remember what this is and have no interest in going back to find where I read it. Now, if you'd like to find a place for torture within Rand's ethics of emergencies, start a thread, be my guest. I won't participate.

--Brant

I know exactly what torture is, so you don't have to tell me. Here's an instance of torture:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/05/jihad-porn-this-is-our-mortal-enemy.html

It's also the actual face of the enemy who is aligned against us, that many people here seem to want to protect. If a drug can be used (sodium pentathol?)and it works, then fine, use the drug. If the only option left is torture, then tortue the evil filth. I don't need to go over Ayn Rands ethics of emergency to work out whether it should or shouldn't be done. She doesn't determine for me what I do or do not value or what I will or will not pay for it. Evil filth, such as the filth in that video, have no rights - they are outside the bounds of the civilised world.

Richard