Untangling The Constitution: Rights vs. Enumeration (Commerce Clause etc)

[MrBenjamatic]

I highly suggest reading the end of my aesthetic topic titled "A New Architecture, Couture" which states my justification of individual rights. My justification of rights is new and is different from but doesn't contradict Ayn Rand's justification. I base individual rights understandably, eloquently and directly off the laws of logic. The Commerce Clause is the enumeration of the Constitution which gives government the "right to regulate" trade. This contradicts an individuals right to that which is his and no one else's; how can you have a right to that which is yours and no one else's, and, at the same time, not have the right to offer to trade that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission? That is a contradiction. I'd also like to highlight my terminology: You have the right to -not trade- but offer to trade that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. If you had the right to trade, no one would have the right to refuse to trade with you. As I mentioned earlier, the Commerce Clause is an enumeration in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment clearly, precisely and openly states, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". In modern and clearer rhetoric, the enumeration in the Constitution is not to deny rights retained by the people (made clear by the bill of rights which is made clearer by my logical, axiomatic justifcation of the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness). Most all professional trading is regulated by the government. The government and their sanctioned bodies (ex. The AIA) use the commerce clause as their justification for violating your rights and requiring you to serve them in order to achieve a license in order to legally practice. In the cases wherein a license is required, if you do not have a gov. approved license and you trade without that required license, you are punished BY FORCE. A license, by its definition, is permission. A government license is a mask they use to cover slavery. Only a slave may act on permission. Permission can be revoked at any time. Rights can be exersized without permission. In addition, government issued licenses may only be achieved by servitude to the government or a government sanctioned body. If you would NOT have volunteered such service to the government (or a institution it supports) had their laws not threatened you with force (if you didn't serve them), that would, obviously, classify as being involuntary servitude. I shall now read to you the clear and precise 13th Amendment: niether slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. You are forced to serve the gov. and its sanctioned "professional" regulating bodies in order to achieve a license (or permission) to offer to trade that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. If you would not have VOLUNTARILY served and followed licensing laws and their corrollary laws, had there been no government threat of force, it would then be right call that which those laws enforce as being involuntary servitude and slavery.

Most of the licensing laws are argued to protect people from professionals who might harm them, and so laws are created to hold all professionals guilty (with no standard of innocence) and regulating them by the principle that you are automatically guilty of that which you might do, are able to do but didn't do. Below I've posted the questionnaire I'll use against the regulators during court:

Let me begin by asking simple yes or no questions. Answer yes it would be cruel and unusual or no it wouldn't be cruel and unusual. Would it be cruel and unusual to punish a child who stole no cookies from the cookie jar for not stealing cookies but having the ability to steal cookies? Answer yes it would be stupid or no it wouldn't be stupid. Would it be stupid to allow teachers to flunk their students -not because they did fail their classses- but because they didn't but are capable of failing their classes? Answer yes it would be fair or no it wouldn't be fair. Would it be fair for a teacher to give a student detention not because he did skip class but because he didn't but could have if he wanted to? Answer yes it would be a cruel and unusual punishment or no it would not be a cruel and unusual punishment. Would it be a cruel and unusual punishment for a jury to sentence a man, who forced no one, to life in prison -not because he did go on a shooting spree- but because he didn't but could have if he wanted to? Answer yes it would be stupid, cruel and unusual or no it wouldn't be stupid, cruel and unusual. Would it be stupid, cruel and unusual for the government to start the use of force against a doctor who forced no one -not because he did harm his patient and violate his rights- but because he didn't but might by accident or because he is able to do it if he wanted to? Answer yes it would be stupid, cruel and unusual or no it wouldn't be stupid, cruel and unusual. Would it be stupid, cruel and unusual for the government to start the use of force against an architect who forced no one -not because he did build a building which collapsed- but because he didn't but might by accident or because he is able to do it if he wanted to? (The defendents have forbidden me to offer to trade my architecture because I haven't but might build shoddy buildings. Also notice I claim I have the right to offer to trade that which is mine and no one else's. If I had the right to trade, no one could refuse to trade as I would have the right to trade). Answer yes or no. Can you be guilty of doing something you might do and are able to do but didn't do? Answer yes or no. Should you be punished for committing a crime you didn't but might commit? Answer yes it is right or no it isn't right. Is is right for you to be consitered by your government to be automatically guilty and treated as a criminal for crimes you didn't commit? Answer yes it is right or no it isn't right. Is it right for you to be regarded by your government as innocent until proven guilty? (If their answer to the second contradicts the first I shall say: Either you are guilty of committing a specific crime or you are not. Let me ask two rhetorical questions. How can you, in regards to the same specific crime, be guilty and innocent at the same time? If you're not automatically guilty and not automatically innocent, what are you?) The purpose of government courts is to determine whether the defendent is guilty of violating others rights. It is right for the government to deny the rights of he who violates others rights. It is a crime to violate others rights. Any action that does not violate others rights cannot rightly be consitered a crime. When you commit a crime the government duly and justly denies you some of your rights; the degree you violate others rights is the degree the government takes away your rights. You are innocent until and unless proven guilty. You are innocent so long as you do not violate others rights. My point is that you shouldn't be punished for a crime until and unless you commit it. So long as you respect -not violate- others rights, the government has no right to take away your rights. You can only violate others rights by force. Answer yes it is just or no is isn't just. Is it just to punish by force a man who forced no one -not because he did force others- but because he might and is able to but didn't force others? Government rightfully has a monopoly on the use of force. Criminals can only be punished by force as force is the only way to harness their rights. If no force was used in prison the criminals could walk out without resistance. How could you violate anothers right to property without forcing them? They could walk away and you couldn't force them. Answer yes it is just or no it isn't just. Is it just to force a man for committing crimes he didn't commit? Answer yes it is just or no it isn't just. Is it just to to force a man for committing crimes he is able to commit but didn't commit? Answer yes it is just or no it isn't just. Is it just to to force a man for committing crimes he might commit but didn't commit? By what right can you knowingly force a man in retaliation for commiting a crime he is able to and might but didn't commit? If all crime consists of violating others rights by and only by force -as rights can only be violated by force- can a man who forces no one be a criminal? Is the man who forces the unforceful man a criminal? I say no, a man who forces no one is not a criminal; I say yes, the man who forces the unforceful man is a criminal. Your regulations say yes, a man who forces no one is a criminal; your regulations say no, the man who forces the unforceful man is not a criminal.

I'd like to ask if anyone see's any contradictions.

[Brant Gaede]

There is no "right" to "regulate trade." The Commerce Clause has been perverted out of its original meaning with a 1939 SCOTUS decision.

--Brant

[MrBenjamatic]

There is no "right" to "regulate trade." The Commerce Clause has been perverted out of its original meaning with a 1939 SCOTUS decision.

--Brant

I agree completely. The 9th Amendment stated, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". I agree, it cannot be a government right to regulate others, "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" (13th Amendment). I haven't, however, read a 1939 SCOTUS decision. I can't find it on the web. What exactly is it?

[Brant Gaede]

There is no "right" to "regulate trade." The Commerce Clause has been perverted out of its original meaning with a 1939 SCOTUS decision.

--Brant

I agree completely. The 9th Amendment stated, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". I agree, it cannot be a government right to regulate others, "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" (13th Amendment). I haven't, however, read a 1939 SCOTUS decision. I can't find it on the web. What exactly is it?

I can't come with an answer off the top of my head, but the whole situation was much more complicated than I thought. GOOGLE "The constitutional revolution of 1937" for starters.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Regulating interstate commerce is not a right of government. Government has NO RIGHTS. It only has specified powers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[MrBenjamatic]

Regulating interstate commerce is not a right of government. Government has NO RIGHTS. It only has specified powers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It was most certaintly an error of the founding fathers to refer to the enumeration as being "certain rights".

Wait, but isn't it right for government to use retalitary force against those who initiate its use in direct accordance to the degree rights were violated? I know it. I haven't read Rand's Capitalism all the way through yet or her description of rights save on Ayn Rand Lexicon. I was told, but didn't take on faith, that Rand said if it is right to do something, it is a right. That makes sense in regards to individuals, however, the government is NOT an individual and there can be no such thing as collective rights. I'm right in saying that aren't I?

[Brant Gaede]

Rand sometimes referred to the right of a government to do this or that or that there were some governments that could claim no rights as they were "slave pen"s. The right of a government to take certain actions is by retaliatory force and derivative from a citizen's right to self defense. Rand's major locus was ethics and her philosophy as a whole. The politics did receive considerably less attention. The metaphysics and epistemology are completely shared with science or invalid unless they directly inform or conform to scientific methodology. Her major philosophical contribution is philosophy as a whole practicably usable--to some extent--logically integrated from base to top X-esthetics apropos four basic principles. All else was/is cultural. She demolished any pretense of collectivism to intellectual-moral legitimacy confirmed by its bloody consequences. She hung her philosophy not on reason, which is actually a given, but on individualism and the impotence of evil.

The problem with her evil is it's not all existential, but that's what is mostly depicted in her art. Evil does gets its pop from "the sanction of the victim," but the victim and the culprit are frequently one and the same. I speculate that her attitude or orientation on this came from being surrounded by the evil of communist totalitarianism in her youth.

--Brant

[PDS]

Regulating interstate commerce is not a right of government. Government has NO RIGHTS. It only has specified powers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It was most certaintly an error of the founding fathers to refer to the enumeration as being "certain rights".

Wait, but isn't it right for government to use retalitary force against those who initiate its use in direct accordance to the degree rights were violated? I know it. I haven't read Rand's Capitalism all the way through yet or her description of rights save on Ayn Rand Lexicon. I was told, but didn't take on faith, that Rand said if it is right to do something, it is a right. That makes sense in regards to individuals, however, the government is NOT an individual and there can be no such thing as collective rights. I'm right in saying that aren't I?

No, you are not "right" in saying this. Not really even close.

I am having difficulty understanding why you would come to an Objectivist wesbite and attempt, within days of having joined this forum, to formulate a "new and different" theory distinct from Rand's theory of rights (Post #1) when you admit that you haven't bothered to read some of Rand's most basic writings on this topic, such as Capitalism, The Unkown Ideal.

Have you read Locke instead? Any natural rights thoerists? The Federalist Papers, perhaps?

You may have noticed that persons such as George Smith regularly post on this forum. He is but one example of somebody on this forum who has studied and published on Rand's theories for 40+ years, has lectured extensively on Rand's philosophy, and has been in the trenches since the get-go, and I doubt he would make a claim as audacious as yours, at least on this topic. You are, of course, entitled to make whatever audacious claims you wish--for, I suppose, as long as our host is willing to entertain them--but I really do think a little humility on this topic is in order. At least until you have found the time to read Rand's writings on the topic at hand.

Rand is not blindly worshipped around here, but she is not taken lightly either. Reading all of her significant writings on a given topic would seem to be a minimal level of respect one owes Rand and her achievements before purporting to modify them, enhance them, or claim congruence with them. The Objectivist virtue of justice demands this much.

[Reidy]

The ninth amendment does not ascribe rights to government. Any questions about whether this is a good way of putting it are moot. The full text is The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. As part of the Bill of Rights, it refers to the rights enumerated in the previous amendments, freedom of religion and of speech and against self-incrimination among them.

[Brant Gaede]

"The right to do something is a right" is circular or tautological. The obviousness of this is even more apparent if one were to say, "The right to do something is not a right" turning it into a blatant contradiction.

--Brant

[Reidy]

Not necessarily. It wouldn't be a tautology if it meant that this is one kind of right, e.g. the right to do something is a right, as it the right to believe something and the right to buy and sell something.

In any case, that's not what MrBenjamatic said. He ascribed to Rand the view that " if it is right to do something, it is a right." This means (unless MrBenjamatic has a new, original, never-before-thought-of meaning) that if X is the proper course of action, doing X is within our rights. This is at least plausible and maybe true.

[syrakusos]

In any case, that's not what MrBenjamatic said. He ascribed to Rand the view that " if it is right to do something, it is a right." This means (unless MrBenjamatic has a new, original, never-before-thought-of meaning) that if X is the proper course of action, doing X is within our rights. This is at least plausible and maybe true.

It is an interesting pun. The word "right" might refer to handedness or charge-spin, but that would have nothing to do with politics and ethics. Assuming that you have a political right to any morally right action, does that allow any contradictions?

[anthony]

"The concept of a "right" pertains only to action --specifically to freedom of action.

It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a POSITIVE -- of his

freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own VOLUNTARY, UNCOERCED

choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them, except of a

NEGATIVE kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights --and the right to property is their

only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible."

['Man's Rights'CUI]

[MrBenjamatic]

I was told by someone who claimed to be an Objectivist, but did not take on faith, that if it is right to do something it is a right. Remember I did not take this on faith or even consiter it much before I posted #6. I know Rand said rights are a moral concept and I know thats because it is RiGHT to sustain ones life and one has to be RIGHT to sustain ones life and one needs the right to sustain ones live, the right to be virtuous (according to Objectivist ethis which does not violate others rights). My reason for posting #6 was the same as my reason for joing this website: to have my premises checked: I want to see what, in Objectivist philosophy, that premises contradicts, if it contradicts anything.

Michael: It is right to act in absolute accordance to that which is true to the best of your ability. One, I very strongly hold, has a right to act in absolute accordance to that which is true. One has a right to sustain ones life so long as one does not initiate force and what other way can one sustain ones life if not by acting in absolute accordance to truth to the best of ones ability? I hold that the good is the practical acceptance of the right and the true. The evil is the practical acceptance of the wrong and the false. (There's probably a better way of wording the last two sentences). Simply, the good is in accordance with the right and the true and the evil is that which is not absolutely in accordance with the right and the true; that which is not absolutely true is false and that which is not absolutely right is wrong. When I say right, remember, it is right to think and it can't be wrong (immoral) to make mistakes. If it were wrong (immoral) to make mistakes, man (who is not infallible or omniscent) would be automatically evil, would have a tendency to be evil, as Christians hold he is.

PDS: I have been studying Objectivism for 1.5 years vigorously. I studied it all day every day (except when I was working on my architecture). I had very little breaks as I can't stand long breaks. I was very dilligent and vigorous in studying Objectivism. If you are referring to my basing rights of the laws of logic I know I am right (moral) in doing that as my description of rights is in direct accordance with the law of causality with the laws of logic, both of which are absolutes.

I know many people have construed me to be a hyperactive newby or something the like. Heres why, I think: I started with Objectivism by first grasping reason and other axioms. It took me about 3 months before discovering the laws of logic (for the Ayn Rand Lexicon which I used as my guide). But, after understanding the basic principles of objectivism I made my own conclusions which I compared to Rand's to check my premises. When I reached a contradiction (when my premises contradicted reality or objectivism), I checked mine and Ayn Rand's premises. Ayn always ended up being right. I have, in my pursuit, come to conclusions Rand didn't reach but I made sure that they don't contradict the laws of logic or Rand (as Rand has, so far, always been right). I've been doing this for over a year and a half and it has taken ALOT of thinking. Volumes of thought, as Rand put it, and I can't emphasize this point enough: ALOT of thinking. Atlas Shrugged was great in describing that one has to reach ones conclusions on one's own. I'm sure there are a number of Objectivists who try to merely accept what Rand said as true without understanding it which is almost as bad as taking her on faith.

I was constantly on and read almost all (%75-%85) of the Ayn Rand Lexicon, so, yes, I could say I've read parts of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I'm reading it now and I haven't reached a point with which I don't agree with AND AT THE SAME TIME understand. I achieved my original goals of being able to completely understand Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (Although there is about 2% of the Atlas speech which I am working on understanding). I don't know you that well but I gather from your comments you think I'm pretentious (and you already called me audacious). That's fine and from, what you know of me so far, probably just. I don't condemn you in the least. I know I have a great ability and I've known it for a long time. But you couldn't have known that. You've only seen my skectches of my architecture and haute couture, that, for all you know, can't be brought to exist in reality; for all you know I could have not gone any farther than putting pencil to paper and may have made up knowlege of my ability to construct that which I've drawn (which is probably not all that clear to you either). You've only seen one small sculpture which I did a year ago and which I couldn't even make that intiricate due to having a limit on the size I could make it. Like I said, you're very very likely just in your remarks. Had you seen a building I built and you implied I'm pretentious and unduly bold, I'd say otherwise. I niether expect you nor anyone else to take me on faith on that which I can't prove past sketches and small clay sculpture. I can, however, exersize my intellectual ability here and, again, I joined this website for the sake of having my premises checked. And though my description of rights is distinct from Rands, I've been working diligently towards it for around a year and a half (every day) and it doesn't, to the extent of my knowlege, contradict Rand.

[MrBenjamatic]

The ninth amendment does not ascribe rights to government. Any questions about whether this is a good way of putting it are moot. The full text is The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. As part of the Bill of Rights, it refers to the rights enumerated in the previous amendments, freedom of religion and of speech and against self-incrimination among them.

That's what I thought when I first read the 9th amendment and upon reading the definition of 'enumeration'. Upon a little legal research, I discovered, from at least one reliable source, that the powers of Article 1, Section 8 are called enumerated powers. Then it clicked and I was very happy. I think the rights of one man having no right to contradict the rights of another man is a redundancy and is not, I have noticed, made clear in the Constitution except by the 5th amendment. Also, I believe I should thank you on correcting my mistake of further defining believe when it would obviously confuse. Before this website, in the philosophical conversation I engaged in, no one corrected me. I'm glad I was. Thanks.

[PDS]

I was told by someone who claimed to be an Objectivist, but did not take on faith, that if it is right to do something it is a right. Remember I did not take this on faith or even consiter it much before I posted #6. I know Rand said rights are a moral concept and I know thats because it is RiGHT to sustain ones life and one has to be RIGHT to sustain ones life and one needs the right to sustain ones live, the right to be virtuous (according to Objectivist ethis which does not violate others rights). My reason for posting #6 was the same as my reason for joing this website: to have my premises checked: I want to see what, in Objectivist philosophy, that premises contradicts, if it contradicts anything.

Michael: It is right to act in absolute accordance to that which is true to the best of your ability. One, I very strongly hold, has a right to act in absolute accordance to that which is true. One has a right to sustain ones life so long as one does not initiate force and what other way can one sustain ones life if not by acting in absolute accordance to truth to the best of ones ability? I hold that the good is the practical acceptance of the right and the true. The evil is the practical acceptance of the wrong and the false. (There's probably a better way of wording the last two sentences). Simply, the good is in accordance with the right and the true and the evil is that which is not absolutely in accordance with the right and the true; that which is not absolutely true is false and that which is not absolutely right is wrong. When I say right, remember, it is right to think and it can't be wrong (immoral) to make mistakes. If it were wrong (immoral) to make mistakes, man (who is not infallible or omniscent) would be automatically evil, would have a tendency to be evil, as Christians hold he is.

PDS: I have been studying Objectivism for 1.5 years vigorously. I studied it all day every day (except when I was working on my architecture). I had very little breaks as I can't stand long breaks. I was very dilligent and vigorous in studying Objectivism. If you are referring to my basing rights of the laws of logic I know I am right (moral) in doing that as my description of rights is in direct accordance with the law of causality with the laws of logic, both of which are absolutes.

I know many people have construed me to be a hyperactive newby or something the like. Heres why, I think: I started with Objectivism by first grasping reason and other axioms. It took me about 3 months before discovering the laws of logic (for the Ayn Rand Lexicon which I used as my guide). But, after understanding the basic principles of objectivism I made my own conclusions which I compared to Rand's to check my premises. When I reached a contradiction (when my premises contradicted reality or objectivism), I checked mine and Ayn Rand's premises. Ayn always ended up being right. I have, in my pursuit, come to conclusions Rand didn't reach but I made sure that they don't contradict the laws of logic or Rand (as Rand has, so far, always been right). I've been doing this for over a year and a half and it has taken ALOT of thinking. Volumes of thought, as Rand put it, and I can't emphasize this point enough: ALOT of thinking. Atlas Shrugged was great in describing that one has to reach ones conclusions on one's own. I'm sure there are a number of Objectivists who try to merely accept what Rand said as true without understanding it which is almost as bad as taking her on faith.

I was constantly on and read almost all (%75-%85) of the Ayn Rand Lexicon, so, yes, I could say I've read parts of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I'm reading it now and I haven't reached a point with which I don't agree with AND AT THE SAME TIME understand. I achieved my original goals of being able to completely understand Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (Although there is about 2% of the Atlas speech which I am working on understanding). I don't know you that well but I gather from your comments you think I'm pretentious (and you already called me audacious). That's fine and from, what you know of me so far, probably just. I don't condemn you in the least. I know I have a great ability and I've known it for a long time. But you couldn't have known that. You've only seen my skectches of my architecture and haute couture, that, for all you know, can't be brought to exist in reality; for all you know I could have not gone any farther than putting pencil to paper and may have made up knowlege of my ability to construct that which I've drawn (which is probably not all that clear to you either). You've only seen one small sculpture which I did a year ago and which I couldn't even make that intiricate due to having a limit on the size I could make it. Like I said, you're very very likely just in your remarks. Had you seen a building I built and you implied I'm pretentious and unduly bold, I'd say otherwise. I niether expect you nor anyone else to take me on faith on that which I can't prove past sketches and small clay sculpture. I can, however, exersize my intellectual ability here and, again, I joined this website for the sake of having my premises checked. And though my description of rights is distinct from Rands, I've been working diligently towards it for around a year and a half (every day) and it doesn't, to the extent of my knowlege, contradict Rand.

Okay, now I get it. You are actually pulling our collective leg, aren't you? Well played, sir.

Just noticed, for instance, that you want to "very much" smoke "lavender and peach" cigarettes. Of course you do. Very nice. Hilarious.

[MrBenjamatic]

I was told by someone who claimed to be an Objectivist, but did not take on faith, that if it is right to do something it is a right. Remember I did not take this on faith or even consiter it much before I posted #6. I know Rand said rights are a moral concept and I know thats because it is RiGHT to sustain ones life and one has to be RIGHT to sustain ones life and one needs the right to sustain ones live, the right to be virtuous (according to Objectivist ethis which does not violate others rights). My reason for posting #6 was the same as my reason for joing this website: to have my premises checked: I want to see what, in Objectivist philosophy, that premises contradicts, if it contradicts anything.

Michael: It is right to act in absolute accordance to that which is true to the best of your ability. One, I very strongly hold, has a right to act in absolute accordance to that which is true. One has a right to sustain ones life so long as one does not initiate force and what other way can one sustain ones life if not by acting in absolute accordance to truth to the best of ones ability? I hold that the good is the practical acceptance of the right and the true. The evil is the practical acceptance of the wrong and the false. (There's probably a better way of wording the last two sentences). Simply, the good is in accordance with the right and the true and the evil is that which is not absolutely in accordance with the right and the true; that which is not absolutely true is false and that which is not absolutely right is wrong. When I say right, remember, it is right to think and it can't be wrong (immoral) to make mistakes. If it were wrong (immoral) to make mistakes, man (who is not infallible or omniscent) would be automatically evil, would have a tendency to be evil, as Christians hold he is.

PDS: I have been studying Objectivism for 1.5 years vigorously. I studied it all day every day (except when I was working on my architecture). I had very little breaks as I can't stand long breaks. I was very dilligent and vigorous in studying Objectivism. If you are referring to my basing rights of the laws of logic I know I am right (moral) in doing that as my description of rights is in direct accordance with the law of causality with the laws of logic, both of which are absolutes.

I know many people have construed me to be a hyperactive newby or something the like. Heres why, I think: I started with Objectivism by first grasping reason and other axioms. It took me about 3 months before discovering the laws of logic (for the Ayn Rand Lexicon which I used as my guide). But, after understanding the basic principles of objectivism I made my own conclusions which I compared to Rand's to check my premises. When I reached a contradiction (when my premises contradicted reality or objectivism), I checked mine and Ayn Rand's premises. Ayn always ended up being right. I have, in my pursuit, come to conclusions Rand didn't reach but I made sure that they don't contradict the laws of logic or Rand (as Rand has, so far, always been right). I've been doing this for over a year and a half and it has taken ALOT of thinking. Volumes of thought, as Rand put it, and I can't emphasize this point enough: ALOT of thinking. Atlas Shrugged was great in describing that one has to reach ones conclusions on one's own. I'm sure there are a number of Objectivists who try to merely accept what Rand said as true without understanding it which is almost as bad as taking her on faith.

I was constantly on and read almost all (%75-%85) of the Ayn Rand Lexicon, so, yes, I could say I've read parts of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I'm reading it now and I haven't reached a point with which I don't agree with AND AT THE SAME TIME understand. I achieved my original goals of being able to completely understand Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (Although there is about 2% of the Atlas speech which I am working on understanding). I don't know you that well but I gather from your comments you think I'm pretentious (and you already called me audacious). That's fine and from, what you know of me so far, probably just. I don't condemn you in the least. I know I have a great ability and I've known it for a long time. But you couldn't have known that. You've only seen my skectches of my architecture and haute couture, that, for all you know, can't be brought to exist in reality; for all you know I could have not gone any farther than putting pencil to paper and may have made up knowlege of my ability to construct that which I've drawn (which is probably not all that clear to you either). You've only seen one small sculpture which I did a year ago and which I couldn't even make that intiricate due to having a limit on the size I could make it. Like I said, you're very very likely just in your remarks. Had you seen a building I built and you implied I'm pretentious and unduly bold, I'd say otherwise. I niether expect you nor anyone else to take me on faith on that which I can't prove past sketches and small clay sculpture. I can, however, exersize my intellectual ability here and, again, I joined this website for the sake of having my premises checked. And though my description of rights is distinct from Rands, I've been working diligently towards it for around a year and a half (every day) and it doesn't, to the extent of my knowlege, contradict Rand.

Okay, now I get it. You are actually pulling our collective leg, aren't you? Well played, sir.

Just noticed, for instance, that you want to "very much" smoke "lavender and peach" cigarettes. Of course you do. Very nice. Hilarious.

I started mixing my own tobacco and creating my own flavors with herbs and spices and I've been pleased with myself so far. I think lavender is one of the most voluptuous means of pleasing my sense of smell and taste (though i haven't mixed it yet with my tobacco). I think lavender mixed with peach would make for a good flavoring of cigarrettes. Nothing can be luxurious if it doesn't please at least one of the senses to a highly satisfying degree.

[MrBenjamatic]

Not necessarily. It wouldn't be a tautology if it meant that this is one kind of right, e.g. the right to do something is a right, as it the right to believe something and the right to buy and sell something.

In any case, that's not what MrBenjamatic said. He ascribed to Rand the view that " if it is right to do something, it is a right." This means (unless MrBenjamatic has a new, original, never-before-thought-of meaning) that if X is the proper course of action, doing X is within our rights. This is at least plausible and maybe true.

That is what I mean. One must be right (moral) in order to remain in and sustain one's existence. One has a right to sustain his existence so long as he does not initiate the use of force on others. Thereby man has a right in order to be right; it is never right to initiate force and thereby having the right to be right is within each individuals realm of rights. Has Rand not said this?

And if you hold one has the right to buy or sell, I thought I should point out that no one has that right. You have the right to offer to buy and offer to sell. The word offer makes clear that in order for it to be a right it must be volitional for both parties. if you had the right to buy something you would have the right to buy something that someone doesnt want to sell and they have no right not to sell it as you would have the right to buy it.

[Brant Gaede]

Not necessarily. It wouldn't be a tautology if it meant that this is one kind of right, e.g. the right to do something is a right, as it the right to believe something and the right to buy and sell something.

In any case, that's not what MrBenjamatic said. He ascribed to Rand the view that " if it is right to do something, it is a right." This means (unless MrBenjamatic has a new, original, never-before-thought-of meaning) that if X is the proper course of action, doing X is within our rights. This is at least plausible and maybe true.

That is what I mean. One must be right (moral) in order to remain in and sustain one's existence. One has a right to sustain his existence so long as he does not initiate the use of force on others. Thereby man has a right in order to be right; it is never right to initiate force and thereby having the right to be right is within each individuals realm of rights. Has Rand not said this?

And if you hold one has the right to buy or sell, I thought I should point out that no one has that right. You have the right to offer to buy and offer to sell. The word offer makes clear that in order for it to be a right it must be volitional for both parties. if you had the right to buy something you would have the right to buy something that someone doesnt want to sell and they have no right not to sell it as you would have the right to buy it.

You have the right to buy and sell and the other party has the same right and if you don't agree on the transaction there is no sale. If someone has to sell you something--assuming you are not using an option--that sort of thing--then you have to initiate force to get him to sell. Your rights stop where force begins; there's no point of nuancing this into needless complexity. How many rights are there? How many voluntary transactions are there? You can reduce rights into groups and give them group names, but the actions are particular.

--Brant

[anthony]

Morality precedes rights.

Of course, what is "right" is a right.

Am I missing something?

(And sometimes what is your right is not "right".)

[MrBenjamatic]

Morality precedes rights.

Of course, what is "right" is a right.

Am I missing something?

(And sometimes what is your right is not "right".)

Nope, you got it.