Where did Ayn Rand claim that rights are "contextual"?

[sjw]

Anybody else notice the implicit argument she made for eminent domain?

--Brant

I noticed a few really sadly bizarre and wrong things I'd rather not comment on. These were extemporaneous remarks, she might have not meant what she said. One can hope.

Shayne

[sjw]

Personally, I prefer the more palatable example of a hiker lost and starving in a blizzard on a mountain who comes upon a locked cabin. His only option is to break in and eat the owner's food or face certain death. The right to property may not be so defined as to require him to remain outside and die. It can only require him to contact the owner later and reimburse him.

The right to property is absolute, but when infringed, the recourse has to be to put the original owner back to his original condition. In other words, a reasonable implementation of justice would yield the same consequences as your interpretation does, but does not throw property rights out the window. I.e., the solution here is not to change the definition of "right to property," but to make sure you have a sane definition of "right to justice."

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Personally, I prefer the more palatable example of a hiker lost and starving in a blizzard on a mountain who comes upon a locked cabin. His only option is to break in and eat the owner's food or face certain death. The right to property may not be so defined as to require him to remain outside and die. It can only require him to contact the owner later and reimburse him.

The right to property is absolute, but when infringed, the recourse has to be to put the original owner back to his original condition. In other words, a reasonable implementation of justice would yield the same consequences as your interpretation does, but does not throw property rights out the window. I.e., the solution here is not to change the definition of "right to property," but to make sure you have a sane definition of "right to justice."

Shayne

You break into the cabin to save your life. There is a price to pay for that, but while you have damaged someone's legal right to his property you have not damaged your moral right to your own life. So you refuse to break into the cabin and freeze to death outside. The owner comes by and sees you dead there and wonders why you didn't break in: Oh, he thought I was a materialistic schmuck and respected that. What a stupid schmuck!

--Brant

Edited March 25, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Mike Renzulli]

I would tend to agree with Shayne's assessment on property rights and I think this might be similar to what Leonard Peikoff said in his podcast on the Ground Zero Mosque that property rights are contextual.

There is a right to property only in so far that force or fraud is not used to obtain it. In terms of the issue of physical property the right only goes so far until it is deemed that said property owner poses a threat to the individual rights of others. either around him or her or at large.

For example, if someone possesses a nuclear weapon or, to paraphrase Dr. Peikoff, if said property owner is using their house or structure (such as a religious institution) as a means of trying to influence followers or guests to be terrorists.

Personally, I prefer the more palatable example of a hiker lost and starving in a blizzard on a mountain who comes upon a locked cabin. His only option is to break in and eat the owner's food or face certain death. The right to property may not be so defined as to require him to remain outside and die. It can only require him to contact the owner later and reimburse him.

The right to property is absolute, but when infringed, the recourse has to be to put the original owner back to his original condition. In other words, a reasonable implementation of justice would yield the same consequences as your interpretation does, but does not throw property rights out the window. I.e., the solution here is not to change the definition of "right to property," but to make sure you have a sane definition of "right to justice."

Shayne

Edited March 25, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[sjw]

But phrasing it as "rights are contextual" is misleading. At the very least it should be phrased as "rights are contextual absolutes." In the example you give here, if someone has nukes on their property then they are infringing on other's right to not be subjected to risk of physical harm. And this is a very specific, directed argument that the nuke-owner doesn't in fact have a right to keep the nuke there. It's not an argument that sometimes rights can be trounced, it's an argument that there is no such right to keep a nuke in a neighborhood.

Shayne

I would tend to agree with Shayne's assessment on property rights and I think this might be similar to what Leonard Peikoff said in his podcast on the Ground Zero Mosque that property rights are contextual.

There is a right to property only in so far that force or fraud is not used to obtain it. In terms of the issue of physical property the right only goes so far until it is deemed that said property owner poses a threat to the individual rights of others around him or her.

For example, if someone possesses a nuclear weapon or, to paraphrase Dr. Peikoff, if said property owner is using their house or structure (such as a religious institution) as a means of trying to influence followers or guests to be terrorists.

Personally, I prefer the more palatable example of a hiker lost and starving in a blizzard on a mountain who comes upon a locked cabin. His only option is to break in and eat the owner's food or face certain death. The right to property may not be so defined as to require him to remain outside and die. It can only require him to contact the owner later and reimburse him.

The right to property is absolute, but when infringed, the recourse has to be to put the original owner back to his original condition. In other words, a reasonable implementation of justice would yield the same consequences as your interpretation does, but does not throw property rights out the window. I.e., the solution here is not to change the definition of "right to property," but to make sure you have a sane definition of "right to justice."

Shayne

[Mike Renzulli]

Well said and I agree.

Political rights only exist to objectify the proscription of force the members of a society must refrain from and the prescription of force an independent third party institution charged with guaranteeing them (government) may and/or must use to stop, prevent or punish such force. They are necessitated as a means to preserve individual autonomy in the application of reason to effort in the service of life in a society. In the absence of a choice by a sufficient population to systematically guarantee individual autonomy through a third party institution, there are no political rights. Thus one sense in which rights are contextual results from the prerequisite conditions for their ethical necessity and possibility of enforcement. [see OPAR ch.10 "Government - Individual Rights as Absolutes" p.351 ppb]

A second sense in which rights are contextual results from the nature of the ethical necessity itself—the fact that they are necessary to the pursuit of life. As such, no right may be defined in such a way that an act of sustaining it would cause or result in one's own death [or, in Peikoff's terms, end one's metaphysical survival]. This contextual limitaion excludes the applicability of rights to emergency situations, as Peikoff explained with the conflict between shipwreck survivors. Personally, I prefer the more palatable example of a hiker lost and starving in a blizzard on a mountain who comes upon a locked cabin. His only option is to break in and eat the owner's food or face certain death. The right to property may not be so defined as to require him to remain outside and die. It can only require him to contact the owner later and reimburse him.

[Brant Gaede]

Well said and I agree.

Political rights only exist to objectify the proscription of force the members of a society must refrain from and the prescription of force an independent third party institution charged with guaranteeing them (government) may and/or must use to stop, prevent or punish such force. They are necessitated as a means to preserve individual autonomy in the application of reason to effort in the service of life in a society. In the absence of a choice by a sufficient population to systematically guarantee individual autonomy through a third party institution, there are no political rights. Thus one sense in which rights are contextual results from the prerequisite conditions for their ethical necessity and possibility of enforcement. [see OPAR ch.10 "Government - Individual Rights as Absolutes" p.351 ppb]

A second sense in which rights are contextual results from the nature of the ethical necessity itself—the fact that they are necessary to the pursuit of life. As such, no right may be defined in such a way that an act of sustaining it would cause or result in one's own death [or, in Peikoff's terms, end one's metaphysical survival]. This contextual limitaion excludes the applicability of rights to emergency situations, as Peikoff explained with the conflict between shipwreck survivors. Personally, I prefer the more palatable example of a hiker lost and starving in a blizzard on a mountain who comes upon a locked cabin. His only option is to break in and eat the owner's food or face certain death. The right to property may not be so defined as to require him to remain outside and die. It can only require him to contact the owner later and reimburse him.

Then walk the walk.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Time is another context for rights--especially property rights.

What property rights does an infant have?

And when he inherits property from his parents, how long down the line do those property rights extend?

For instance, do the property rights of any individual among the ancient Romans affect anyone nowadays? In addition to trying to figure out the lineage, there have been so many changes in government that you don't even know which law should be applied.

I don't think property rights can even exist without a government. Looking at history, when one country has vanquished another, often the property rights started all over anew. If it didn't, this was only because the conquering country agreed to allow some of the former deeds and contracts to stand.

The more I look at history, the more I see the start of property rights as being one tribe planting a demarcated boundary and saying, "This is ours. We will kill whoever tries to take it from us." If you look at what human beings have done since recorded history and set aside deducing reality from principles (in other words, look at what did exist as opposed to what should have existed according to this or that standard), whether people were on some land before or not seems to be irrelevant if the force and willingness to own that land are great enough among the claim-staking tribe's leadership.

The problem I see with this for a modern society--and defining rights for that matter--is realizing that our principles of land ownership had such an origin, but preaching that getting land like this is invalid.

Michael

[sjw]

Time is another context for rights--especially property rights.

What property rights does an infant have?

And when he inherits property from his parents, how long down the line do those property rights extend?

For instance, do the property rights of any individual among the ancient Romans affect anyone nowadays? In addition to trying to figure out the lineage, there have been so many changes in government that you don't even know which law should be applied.

I don't think property rights can even exist without a government. Looking at history, when one country has vanquished another, often the property rights started all over anew. If it didn't, this was only because the conquering country agreed to allow some of the former deeds and contracts to stand.

The more I look at history, the more I see the start of property rights as being one tribe planting a demarcated boundary and saying, "This is ours. We will kill whoever tries to take it from us." If you look at what human beings have done since recorded history and set aside deducing reality from principles (in other words, look at what did exist as opposed to what should have existed according to this or that standard), whether people were there before or not seems to be irrelevant if the force and willingness to own that land are great enough among the claim-staking tribe's leadership.

The problem I see with this for a modern society is realizing that our principles of land ownership had such an origin, but preaching that getting land like this is invalid.

Michael

As John Locke began to identify, property rights happen when your life processes are bound up in material objects. So if you have a farm, a home, and you're living and maintaining it, then it doesn't matter what government is there, you have a right to stay there, and if you pass this on to your family and they don't abandon it, then it's theirs.

Now, governments have traditionally assigned property by mere fiat, as in pointing and owning vast swaths of land. This causes the kinds of problems you're talking about, the problem isn't the concept of property rights, it's illegitimate claims to property.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Once again, illegitimate by what standard?

Do I understand you using need as the standard?

I'm not being argumentative. If a position is to be advanced, questions like this must be addressed if it is to have logical legitimacy.

Michael

[sjw]

Shayne,

Once again, illegitimate by what standard?

Do I understand you using need as the standard?

Michael

No, need isn't the standard, life is the standard. Your living action being bound up in a material object makes it your property. This is what it means to use something, it's what it means to own something, and it's why one naturally gets pissed off when someone takes it from you. If I'm eating an apple, or living in a home, and you try to start eating my apple or living there yourself, then you are interfering with my life processes, i.e., you are violating my rights.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

What's the difference between need and life in this context? They sound the same to me.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

What I said in terms of rights are contextual are in terms of ethics among human beings. In terms of government, like I have said (and am tired of repeating myself), a legitimate one views individuals under its jurisdiction as having rights up until the point that it is discovered via an investigation that one group or person poses a threat to the individual rights of others then they lose a part or all of their rights depending on the threat posed.

I believe this is what Ms. Rand, Dr. Peikoff and Robert Bidinotto are stating as well.

In terms of the below statement you make it seems your stated disagreement or concern is one of articulation and not necessarily theory.

But phrasing it as "rights are contextual" is misleading. At the very least it should be phrased as "rights are contextual absolutes." In the example you give here, if someone has nukes on their property then they are infringing on other's right to not be subjected to risk of physical harm. And this is a very specific, directed argument that the nuke-owner doesn't in fact have a right to keep the nuke there. It's not an argument that sometimes rights can be trounced, it's an argument that there is no such right to keep a nuke in a neighborhood.

Shayne

I would tend to agree with Shayne's assessment on property rights and I think this might be similar to what Leonard Peikoff said in his podcast on the Ground Zero Mosque that property rights are contextual.

There is a right to property only in so far that force or fraud is not used to obtain it. In terms of the issue of physical property the right only goes so far until it is deemed that said property owner poses a threat to the individual rights of others around him or her.

For example, if someone possesses a nuclear weapon or, to paraphrase Dr. Peikoff, if said property owner is using their house or structure (such as a religious institution) as a means of trying to influence followers or guests to be terrorists.

Personally, I prefer the more palatable example of a hiker lost and starving in a blizzard on a mountain who comes upon a locked cabin. His only option is to break in and eat the owner's food or face certain death. The right to property may not be so defined as to require him to remain outside and die. It can only require him to contact the owner later and reimburse him.

The right to property is absolute, but when infringed, the recourse has to be to put the original owner back to his original condition. In other words, a reasonable implementation of justice would yield the same consequences as your interpretation does, but does not throw property rights out the window. I.e., the solution here is not to change the definition of "right to property," but to make sure you have a sane definition of "right to justice."

Shayne

Edited March 25, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[sjw]

Shayne,

What's the difference between need and life in this context? They sound the same to me.

Michael

You're either using something or you aren't. Just because you need something doesn't mean you have it. What I'm talking about is a situation where you already have it. That's what property means -- when you have it. Not when you need it...

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

So use is your fundamental standard?

I can't grok use=life on a premise level. There are too many things you can use that are not survival-related.

Michael

[sjw]

Shayne,

So use is your fundamental standard?

I can't grok use=life on a premise level. There are too many things you can use that are not survival-related.

Michael

No, use is a key idea to property rights, not all rights. A right to justice has nothing to do with use for example. Nor did I even mention anything being "survival related."

The fundamental standard of rights is: does an action interfere with your non-interfering action or not? Property rights are an example of your action pertaining to some object, when someone takes it they are interfering with your action. That's a special case of interference not the fundamental.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No, use is a key idea to property rights, not all rights.

Shayne,

I was talking about property rights here. I have been addressing your post from above where you said: "... the problem isn't the concept of property rights, it's illegitimate claims to property."

So if use is a "key idea," how do you square use with, say, the billions of dollars and property a billionaire owns but does not use and probably does not even know he owns?

I don't see consistency at the premise level so far. It's not just you, either, so don't think I'm trying to give you a hard time or whatever. This premise stuff is important to get right and get clear enough so anyone can understand it. People have killed over these kinds of misunderstandings throughout history.

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

Ayn Rand made the same arguments against a Palestinian homeland (and in favor of Israel’s right to exist) that she made against the Indians. The quotes below are clearly supportive of the contextual nature of rights. (Please note that I found these particular quotes on the web. I don't happen to have Mayhew's book with me so I cannot vouch for their accuracy.)

Ford Hall Forum 1972: "A Nation's Unity"

Q: What do you think about the killing of innocent people in war?

AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. The majority in any country at war is often innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their government, as we are all paying for the sins of ours. And if people put up with dictatorship—as some do in Soviet Russia, and some did in Nazi Germany—they deserve what their government deserves. Our only concern should be who started the war. Once that's established, there's no need to consider the "rights" of that country, because it has initiated the use of force and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights.

Ford Hall Forum 1974:

AR: The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."

From Ayn Rand Answers:

Q: Would you comment on the rights of the Palestinians to their homeland?

AR: Whatever rights the Palestinians may have had -- I don't know the history of the Middle East well enough to know what started the trouble -- they have lost all rights to anything: not only to land, but to human intercourse. If they lost land, and in response resorted to terrorism -- to the slaughter of innocent citizens -- they deserve whatever any commandos anywhere can do to them, and I hope the commandos succeed. (p. 97)

In answer to a separate question:

AR: Even as a writer, I can barely project a situation in which a man must kill an innocent person to defend his own life. ... But suppose someone lives in a dictatorship, and needs a disguise to escape. ... So he must kill an innocent bystander to get a coat. In such a case, morality cannot say what to do. ... Personally, I would say the man is immoral if he takes an innocent life. But formally, as a moral philosopher, I'd say that in such emergency situations, no one could prescribe what action is appropriate. ... Whatever a man chooses in such cases is right -- subjectively. (p. 114)

In the last quote, Rand seems to be making a slightly different argument--i.e., not that the bystander does not have rights, but that his rights need not be respected in that particular context. I'm sure we could have an interesting discussion about whether or not that is actually the case during war as well. In other words, the citizens of the aggressor nation/dictatorship still have individual rights, but their rights do not have to be respected. In practical reality, however, that distinction is obviously meaningless.

[sjw]

No, use is a key idea to property rights, not all rights.

Shayne,

I was talking about property rights here. I have been addressing your post from above where you said: "... the problem isn't the concept of property rights, it's illegitimate claims to property."

So if use is a "key idea," how do you square use with, say, the billions of dollars and property a billionaire owns but does not use and probably does not even know he owns?

I don't see consistency at the premise level so far. It's not just you, either, so don't think I'm trying to give you a hard time or whatever. This premise stuff is important to get right and get clear enough so anyone can understand it. People have killed over these kinds of misunderstandings throughout history.

Michael

I can't adjudicate whether a billionaire (or pauper) owns this or that without knowing what particularly they are claiming ownership to, and why. If you want to claim that the billionaire doesn't own this or that, you have to be prepared to file a case in court, even in the ideal world. No principle by itself is going to answer it, you're going to have to make a particular argument, taking into account the nature of the property, how it was acquired and used over time, etc. This is the rational reason for a legal profession (even though nowadays they don't really work the right way). Even though the principles are simple, I would never assert that applying them always is.

Shayne

[sjw]

Shayne:

Have you ever been in a life or death situation where a weapon was involved?

Adam

Why do you ask?

Shayne

[Selene]

Shayne:

Have you ever been in a life or death situation where a weapon was involved?

Adam

Why do you ask?

Shayne

Because your entire field of vision and perception changes. Your ability to step back and analyze an action narrow and accelerate. If you have never been in the situation, I would not use certain examples to advance the discussion.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I was talking about the fundamental ideas behind your concept of property rights, the premises so to speak, not these other matters you keep bringing up..

But that's OK.

I'm happy to leave this right where it's at for now.

Michael

[sjw]

Shayne,

I was talking about the fundamental ideas behind your concept of property rights, the premises so to speak, not these other matters you keep bringing up..

But that's OK.

I'm happy to leave this right where it's at for now.

Michael

With all the corporate welfare system (aka corporatism or fascism) it's quite likely that any given billionaire doesn't in fact legitimately own at least part of his wealth, but also in our current welfare system it's quite likely that a pauper doesn't either. It's easier to talk about broad cases, such as claiming to own (say) 100 acres through merely filing paperwork but not having done anything at all with the land. Land claims like this violate Lockean principles and is one of the most important kinds of illegitimate property ownership in America. Note also that wars are often about land, and this is a key reason why. People think they can own by pointing instead of by doing and this leads to mayhem.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Shayne:

Have you ever been in a life or death situation where a weapon was involved?

Adam

Why do you ask?

Shayne

Because your entire field of vision and perception changes. Your ability to step back and analyze an action narrow and accelerate. If you have never been in the situation, I would not use certain examples to advance the discussion.

Your first sentence is true. The second applies to police professionals. The third irrelevant because the professional is seasoned in what he is doing. It was okay for Shayne to use his example for he is not discussing how to take out a bad guy in such a situation but was trying to objectify rights in a difficult context. You are really saying he has derailed the discussion, but the discussion is fine. Note, I am not agreeing or disagreeing here with what he said--and neither are you. You are saying he should have used another example. I don't agree.

--Brant

[anthony]

"Objectivists uphold a contextualist view of rights, as being an extension of the ethics of rational self-interest into social situations." --Robert Bidinotto (see http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Bidinotto/Getting_Rights_Right.shtml)

"Rights are contextual. In any situation where metaphysical survival is at stake all property rights are out. You have no obligation to respect property rights. The obvious, classic example of this is, which I've been asked a hundred times, you swim to a desert island — you know, you had a shipwreck — and when you get to the shore, the guy comes to you and says, ‘I've got a fence all around this island. I found it. It's legitimately mine. You can't step onto the beach.' Now, in that situation you are in a literal position of being metaphysically helpless. Since life is the standard of rights, if you no longer can survive this way, rights are out. And it becomes dog-eat-dog or force-against-force." --Leonard Peikoff

I would point out two things regarding Peikoff's inane treason against individual rights:

1. Rand condemned using "lifeboat scenarios" in order to derive ethical theories.

2. A valid theory of rights would not permit one to just grab all the land even when you weren't really using it. Due to Peikoff's weak grasp of the nature of rights, he can't see that you can't just "point and own" or even "fence and own"; on the contrary, the Lockean theory (which Objectivists usually ignore) says that you have to "mix your labor with the land." And even this isn't the whole story on just land acquisition.

But to my main question: Where did Ayn Rand say anything like "rights are contextual"? I think she didn't. I think that in the post-9/11 world, Objectivists who want to stand behind America no matter what it does are wiping the Bill of Rights with their ass and then trying to cover it by corrupting Ayn Rand's view.

Ball is in their court. Put up or shut up. Either demonstrate where Ayn Rand's Objectivism makes the woozy claim that "rights are contextual," or stop defaming Objectivism by attributing that nonsense to her.

Shayne

Someone - I think Xray - asked the pertinent question about the distiction between "metaphysical" and "physical" - when one's life is on the line - regarding Dr Peikoff's quote above. ("Now,...you are in a literal position of being metaphysically helpless. Since life is the standard of rights, if you can no longer survive this way, rights are out.")

Is LP making a false dichotomy between physical and metaphysical?

If your life is dependent upon another person, or everyone else around accepting your right to life, above their right to property, then it is they who abnegate their rights, not you.

Surely? Not, "rights are out",then, but your rights still apply.

(Indeed, the correct action is to overpower, or if it come to that, kill the guy who keeps you off his island.)

I don't know. Could the answer to this 'contextual rights' argument be 'hierarchical rights'?

Interesting.

Tony

Edited March 26, 2011 by whYNOT