It's earlier than we think

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If Wolf wants to clarify exactly what his disagreement with those words in the D of I is... I'll be happy to retract my comment and to apologize to him for inferring something that he did not imply.

Greg,

In other words, you do agree that you inferred this meaning, that Wolf did not "clearly declare" it--as in, there are no words of his that explicitly state this meaning. In further other words, Wolf may have "clearly declared" this meaning to you based on your inference, but he did not "clearly declare" any such thing to the normal reader who is not in your head.

As to you establishing conditions on him for you to correct your own error, that is just normal power crap that humans do.

"I have the right to expect the principle of charity about my meanings when discussing thorny matters with people of goodwill," says one person (Wolf).

"You have no such right. With words, X Y and Z, you actually mean the opposite of what you have said repeatedly and, unless you specifically recant in terms I agree with, I will brand you as the opposite as best I can," says the other (you, in this case).

If you were in the government with real power, this would be a great example of how the government starts encroaching on the rights of others. PC language. That vanity is one of the seeds.

Being an Objectivist who believes these rights are "innate to human nature", have you ever asked yourself: From where did the government get the power to take them away from you today?

I normally avoid these discussions because of statements like this. There is a very good question here couched in two questionable assumptions.

1. First assumption, "being an Objectivist." You assume I am an Objectivist, but how do you know that? If you asked Leonard Peikoff, would he say I am an Objectivist? Or people like Diana Hsieh? Would they say that? I grant you, some people like Michael Prescott just blurt it out, although he backed up the very next day (back in 2006) when I talked about what he was actually saying.

In short, labeling someone by using this kind of rhetoric is making a public tribal identification about them at root. "You belong to that tribe..." "Since you are of that tribe..." "As someone who belongs to that tribe..."

But when you look at it, the people in "that tribe"--at least the ones who claim to own the label Objectivist--would not have me in their tribe under almost any conditions.

How's them apples?

I've said the following several times in the past (and for almost a decade now), but I'm happy to repeat it. I like clarity on this.

If being an Objectivist means a person belongs to such a tribe, a tribe that adheres to Rand's ideas as the true prescription for living and has the mission of saving the world by converting people to those ideas, I am not an Objectivist. If you mean someone who has studied a lot of Rand's ideas and can claim familiarity with the work (like a Kantian professor is a "Kantian" even though he or she may or may not agree with Kant on many issues), then I am that kind of Objectivist.

When you say, like Michael Prescott did back in 2006, "Objectivist Michael Stuart Kelly...," or you said just now, "Being an Objectivist who believes...," the general public understands this in the tribal meaning. You are free to say what you want, of course, but be aware that there are these differences--and that what you say and what the public understands is not always the same.

To be honest, I did not want the name "Objectivist" in the title of this site because of all the nastiness from the tribalists. (They really do outdo themselves at times. ) Kat put Objectivist in the title by simply buying a domain and putting forum software on the site under that domain. I really didn't like this at first, we even fell out over it. Later I thought this was a great idea because there are many people who think as I do and they are tired of being bullied and/or misunderstood by those who sling labels around.

2. The second assumption is that you claim I believe rights are innate to human nature. Wherever did you get that idea? Inferring once again?

That is totally incorrect if you are talking about what is in my head and not what is in yours.

I don't like to talk about rights because there are so many preachers around who get wound up when this topic comes up. But I'll clarify a bit right now. (And get out my umbrella just in case a shit storm comes. )

I see rights as a form of wielding power over other humans. Rights allow one person to limit the actions of other people as to what they can do when the rights owner is around. And he can enforce this limitation with constraints and punishments on violators.

Power is innate to humans and it starts to develop with the relationship patterns babies learn from being forced to obey the adults around them. The human brain processes about 40 sensory impulses per second in the prefrontal neocortex (where our aware part resides) and about 11-20 million sensory impulses per second (depending on who you read) in the rest of the brain. When a baby learns a pattern like the need to obey powerful people from simply being smaller and weaker, he or she learns with the entire brain, not just with the prefrontal neocortex. I would say that pattern is embedded pretty deeply by the time the baby matures into an adolescent.

Rights is just one form of power--one set of rules of power, so to speak. Where there is no power, there are no rights. Talking about rights where no power exists to me is like talking about guppies where no fish exist.

That's what I hold, but some people have gone ballistic when I have said that in the past.

If you want to claim God shared some of His power by granting it to humans when they deal with each other and making that grant inalienable among humans, that's your belief. But I don't hold rights as having the epistemological and metaphysical foundation that you do, nor apparently, as most Objectivism-leaning people and libertarians do in their own manner.

3. Your question about where government gets power now takes on a different nuance. Power over others is innate to humans. Since government is manned by humans, that's where it comes from.

We restrict power as best we can (meaning as rationally as we can) to protect each individual from destruction by bullies, accommodate the growth of the human volitional conceptual faculty, and some other things, but we cannot deny the innate nature of power in human relationships any more than can deny we were once babies.

It is because of power that we need rights in human relationships. The contrary, that power is some kind of abomination against rights, is inverting the metaphysics and hierarchical nature of the concept. It is putting the fundamental part above the kind. It is like saying fish is a type of negative guppy.

I can go on and on about this. And, for other perspectives, you might want to look at the magnificent work George Smith is doing in boiling down the essence of what historical thinkers have proposed about rights and power in his Cato essays, which he graciously shares here on OL.

You constantly frame this issue in terms of God (like many do who take the respective words of the Declaration of Independence to heart), but there are many others who have thoughts that go way beyond your "for-God against-God" dichotomy.

And, to use your standard, each gets what he deserves.

Michael

[moralist]

If Wolf wants to clarify exactly what his disagreement with those words in the D of I is... I'll be happy to retract my comment and to apologize to him for inferring something that he did not imply.

Greg,

In other words, you do agree that you inferred this meaning, that Wolf did not "clearly declare" it--as in, there are no words of his that explicitly state this meaning.

I most certainly did infer a meaning from his words... and I'd like to understand exactly what Wolf meant by his disagreement with the statement in the D of I, so as to understand how it is different from what I had inferred.

As to you establishing conditions on him for you to correct your own error, that is just normal power crap that humans do.

It's hardly an unreasonable condition to want to fully understand what someone else actually meant by their words. So I'm confident that Wolf can speak for himself as to the meaning of his own words. It only takes only a brief sentence or two. He is a writer after all.

I'm more than willing to apologize to Wolf when he makes it clear how what he inferred was not what I implied.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Greg,

I'm normally one who stands up for you. And I don't expect to say anything more about this since it is a vanity and power issue, not a conceptual one.

I know you are intelligent, so you have to know the difference between this:

You've clearly declared that you're one who believes that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were all given to you by the government...

And this:

It's hardly an unreasonable condition to want to fully understand what someone else actually meant by their words.

How you deal with this difference and inconsistency is up to you.

The one thing you will not be able to deny, though, is that you will get what you deserve.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Rights are not innate to a human being nor were they granted by God or "endowed." (Dec. of Independence rhetoric.) The need for rights is. Individualism is more fundamental than human social needs and is what links together all the four basic principles of Objectivism, but rights appertain as does the philosophy to both individual and social needs. (That's why Objectivism is much more than its basic principles for it's also basic principles applied revealing truth. But truth is generally tentative, in principle if not in particular fact. That's why the difference between principle and application. Then we can say the application has found factual knowledge congruent with Objectivism.) Therefore, people needing rights they were invented by political philosophers then put into (some) law. There is nothing philosophically arbitrary going on. That's because human nature qua human needs is not arbitrary. Change the formulation of "negative" rights by running in "positive" rights then the positve rights eat at and eat up the negative rights. Thus, positive rights are merely used as a stolen concept off real (negative) rights, smokescreening what they really are doing so the naval guns of statism can move into effective range unseen by the ignorami cruising the world stuffing their faces with unearned food, meataphorically speaking.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Rights are not innate to a human being nor were they granted by God or "endowed." (Dec. of Independence rhetoric.) The need for rights is. ... There is nothing arbitrary going on. That's because human nature qua human needs is not arbitrary.

Well put. As Miss Rand said, in a related context, men eat bread rather than stones. Human needs are not arbitrary.

I was glad George Smith drew attention to Tom Paine, whose great achievement was to distinguish government from a constitution:

"A Constitution is a Thing antecedent to Government, and a Government is only the Creature of a Constitution. The Constitution of a Country is not the act of its Government, but of the People constituting a Government."

-- which brings me to another of Brant's points -- that the definition and provision of rights is work performed by political philosophers, i.e., by a human agency. Speaking only for myself, no other human activity has been so badly bungled in history. Declarations of rights were issued by Marx and Lenin, by the Nazi Party, by the United Nations, numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions and every President since Woodrow Wilson. The list of political parties, philosophers, special interest groups, trade unions, and military commanders who declared various "rights" is long enough to fill a metropolitan telephone directory. Almost all of it was emotional hot air.

The goal of my work has been to defend a simple proposition advanced by Ben Franklin at the Federal Convention in 1787:

The Freeman's Constitution does not ordain or establish a state. Rather, it is the organizational law of the laissez faire bar. It gives practicing lawyers the right to convene and the duty to pay for courts of first instance, and judges must command the confidence of a majority of their professional colleagues to remain on the bench...

In a laissez faire community of any kind, physical or digital, the rule of law arises from and requires all of the following: a constitutional right to practice legal representation on behalf of others; the right of practicing lawyers to associate for the purpose of selecting judges who, on appointment to the bench, are barred from private legal practice; and the right of any person or organized group to obey and execute lawful orders that may be issued from time to time by the courts so created. The jursidiction of laissez faire constitutional law and the courts which duly interpret and uphold such principles exists globally and perpetually as a matter of right. Laissez faire constitutional law flows from a single proposition, which is that no one may legally judge his own cause of action or act to penalize another without fair public trial and impartial due process of law. Laissez faire law is discovered and demonstrated in the process of litigation and trial. It cannot be legislated, codified, or imposed by a "lawgiver."

A small step in the right direction.

[moralist]

Greg,

I'm normally one who stands up for you. And I don't expect to say anything more about this since it is a vanity and power issue, not a conceptual one.

I know you are intelligent, so you have to know the difference between this:

You've clearly declared that you're one who believes that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were all given to you by the government...

And this:

It's hardly an unreasonable condition to want to fully understand what someone else actually meant by their words.

How you deal with this difference and inconsistency is up to you.

The one thing you will not be able to deny, though, is that you will get what you deserve.

Michael

That is for certain, Michael...

...and even more so in the real world, because this is only a virtual world.

OK, I waited a little while and Wolf has chosen to decline to speak for himself.

Wolf... I sincerely apologize for inferring something that you didn't imply. And I'm sorry that you were offended and angered by my words. That is all my fault for drawing a false conclusion from your disagreement with the statement about rights in the D of I. I do hope that you can forgive me for my bad judgement of your view, and I truly hope that we can still amiably discuss topics here, as there are a wide variety of other subjects that we do agree upon.

From your reaction to my wrong assessment of your view, I can infer that the truth is you do not believe that your rights are given to you by the government. And that's good, for I also agree that government is not the source of our rights...

...and since the government didn't grant those rights to us in the first place,

it also means that the government cannot ever take them away from us.

Sincerely,

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

...and since the government didn't grant those rights to us in the first place,

it also means that the government cannot ever take them away from us.

Sincerely,

Greg

Visit North Korea and convince yourself that is true.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

...and since the government didn't grant those rights to us in the first place,

it also means that the government cannot ever take them away from us.

Sincerely,

Greg

Visit North Korea and convince yourself that is true.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You and I don't live in that dictatorial s***hole, Bob. We live in America, a nation which is exceptionally different because it was founded on Judeo/Christian values.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

...and since the government didn't grant those rights to us in the first place,

it also means that the government cannot ever take them away from us.

Sincerely,

Greg

Uh--government violates rights, not takes them.

--Brant

they are ideas--if they are taken they are simultaneously left behind

[moralist]

Being an Objectivist who believes these rights are "innate to human nature", have you ever asked yourself: From where did the government get the power to take them away from you today?

I normally avoid these discussions because of statements like this. There is a very good question here couched in two questionable assumptions.

1. First assumption, "being an Objectivist." You assume I am an Objectivist, but how do you know that? If you asked Leonard Peikoff, would he say I am an Objectivist? Or people like Diana Hsieh? Would they say that? I grant you, some people like Michael Prescott just blurt it out, although he backed up the very next day (back in 2006) when I talked about what he was actually saying.

In short, labeling someone by using this kind of rhetoric is making a public tribal identification about them at root. "You belong to that tribe..." "Since you are of that tribe..." "As someone who belongs to that tribe..."

But when you look at it, the people in "that tribe"--at least the ones who claim to own the label Objectivist--would not have me in their tribe under almost any conditions.

How's them apples?

Fair enough, Michael... I stand corrected. You are not an Objectivist.

I'm not well versed in the dogma of Objectivism, so I'm glad you moved beyond that doctrinal issue to the question:

"If you believe that rights are "innate to human nature", have you ever asked yourself:

From where did the government get the power to take them away from you today?"

I see rights as a form of wielding power over other humans. Rights allow one person to limit the actions of other people as to what they can do when the rights owner is around. And he can enforce this limitation with constraints and punishments on violators.

Power is innate to humans and it starts to develop with the relationship patterns babies learn from being forced to obey the adults around them. The human brain processes about 40 sensory impulses per second in the prefrontal neocortex (where our aware part resides) and about 11-20 million sensory impulses per second (depending on who you read) in the rest of the brain. When a baby learns a pattern like the need to obey powerful people from simply being smaller and weaker, he or she learns with the entire brain, not just with the prefrontal neocortex. I would say that pattern is embedded pretty deeply by the time the baby matures into an adolescent.Rights is just one form of power--one set of rules of power, so to speak.

Where there is no power, there are no rights. Talking about rights where no power exists to me is like talking about guppies where no fish exist.

That's what I hold, but some people have gone ballistic when I have said that in the past.

You can rest assured that I won't... ...even though I've never heard anyone describe rights from the point of view. So I hope you don't mind if I ask some questions about your view. Taking nothing for granted... do you believe that there is anything greater than yourself that isn't other people?

If you want to claim God shared some of His power by granting it to humans when they deal with each other and making that grant inalienable among humans, that's your belief.

Oh no, I wouldn't claim that.

Rather I see moral law as operating in exactly the same way as the physical laws everyone is familiar with. We understand that it is in our own best interests to behave in a manner which is harmonious with those physical laws in the knowledge that we would impersonally be destroyed by them if we didn't. I find it fascinating that the same physical laws which keep us safe and sustain our life, are the same laws which could destroy us in a second...

...so what makes all the difference is how we relate to those laws.

I regard moral law in exactly the same manner. It is in my own best interests to behave in harmony with it because it not only allows me the opportunity to become a better person, but there is also an inherent protection from others who do not behave in harmony with the same law.

As I have experienced this process unfolding in my own life... it first began as doing what's morally right out of fear of punishment, as well as feeling the pain of consequences from doing what's wrong. But over time, that fear gradually became displaced by a love of what's right. And along with it, so did the fear of the pain of punishment. And as the fear faded away, so did the pain, as there was no longer a purpose for it to be there. The resulting situation is an increasing willingness to do what's right being constantly encouraged by its positive feedback loop of blessings.

But I don't hold rights as having the epistemological and metaphysical foundation that you do, nor apparently, as most Objectivism-leaning people and libertarians do in their own manner.

Ok. I understand. And again not to take anything for granted... what do you believe is the foundation upon which our rights rest?

I'll stop here for now and return to the rest of your comments soon.

Oh, just noticed... Happy Birthday, Michael!

May you live long and prosper.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

...and since the government didn't grant those rights to us in the first place,

it also means that the government cannot ever take them away from us.

Sincerely,

Greg

Guns and handcuffs.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

...and since the government didn't grant those rights to us in the first place,

it also means that the government cannot ever take them away from us.

Sincerely,

Greg

Guns and handcuffs.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If Police holding guns on you while you're being handcuffed and arrested is your own personal experience of the government, I sure can't argue with that.

My experience of government is completely different from yours. The government leaves me alone to enjoy my life.

Greg

[Jules Troy]

Yes when reading the Gulag Archipelago he stated "There is nothing more terrifying than hearing four words." "You are under arrest"....

[BaalChatzaf]

My experience of government is completely different from yours. The government leaves me alone to enjoy my life.

Greg

Do you pay taxes to any level of government? If you do, you pay for the privilege of being left alone.

[moralist]

My experience of government is completely different from yours. The government leaves me alone to enjoy my life.

Greg

Do you pay taxes to any level of government? If you do, you pay for the privilege of being left alone.

In a sense you're right, Bob. I'm happy to pay for the public infrastructure that I use as a Capitalist to make the money to pay for the public infrastructure that I use. It's perfectly fair and just. See? I get exactly the government I deserve by how I live...

...and do so you.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

My experience of government is completely different from yours. The government leaves me alone to enjoy my life.

Greg

Do you pay taxes to any level of government? If you do, you pay for the privilege of being left alone.

In a sense you're right, Bob. I'm happy to pay for the public infrastructure that I use as a Capitalist to make the money to pay for the public infrastructure that I use. It's perfectly fair and just. See? I get exactly the government I deserve by how I live...

...and do so you.

Greg

How about the taxes you pay that are redistributions and which fund special favors to the Cronies? How do they benefit you?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

I don't envy others like you do, Bob. That's because I'm happy with what I have and don't begrudge others. Envy and coveting are sure guarantees of failure in life.

Greg

[Jules Troy]

I pay between 60-90k/ year in taxes. Yeah I resent it a lot. It is by far over what would be considered "fair". Especially since I work 80-100 hours a week mostly. For WHAT? So I can support 5 freaking welfare losers that will of course vote for the sleaze bag that will forcefully demand more of me?

[Brant Gaede]

I pay between 60-90k/ year in taxes. Yeah I resent it a lot. It is by far over what would be considered "fair". Especially since I work 80-100 hours a week mostly. For WHAT? So I can support 5 freaking welfare losers that will of course vote for the sleaze bag that will forcefully demand more of me?

I'd guess 25 - 30 dollars an hour if time and a half for overtime. Regardless of that, why are you killing yourself?

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

48/hr

Erm something to do with being a competitive SOB. Also in my industry it is feast or famine. You basically get as much as you can while you can. When shit hits the fan like 2008 and the entire sector cancels all it's projects for 6months to a year you don't end up eating dog food and joining the pile of idiots that bought a quad, 3 skidoos, 2 trucks a camper a boat and took out a second mortgage to do so! 10 more years and I will be retiring at 55 with no debt. And should be able to live off of just the interest on my investments by then. (Last year they made 72000 just in interest)

Perhaps in 5 years I may even slow down to a 40-50 hour work week!

I REALLY like my career, but I DO look forward to my days off! I do not look at it as killing myself so much as running uphill! I also like being able to pay cash for stuff I REALLY want like erm..6000 cameras!

[moralist]

I pay between 60-90k/ year in taxes. Yeah I resent it a lot. It is by far over what would be considered "fair". Especially since I work 80-100 hours a week mostly. For WHAT? So I can support 5 freaking welfare losers that will of course vote for the sleaze bag that will forcefully demand more of me?

Jules, have you ever considered becoming an entrepreneur by starting your own business? It can be a personally as well as financially rewarding constructive outlet of expression for a competitive person such as yourself. You could enjoy all of the same tax breaks that the big corporations get. And that's just one reward for becoming your own producer. Another reward beyond being an employee is the excitement and adventure of assuming your own financial risks. For the same work you do as an employee, you can make twice as much money in your own business.

...just a thought.

Greg

[Jules Troy]

In my field of expertise the government has changed the rules. A lot! The risk/reward is not there or I would have done it 15 years ago.

I have started a micro business as a hobby though!

[Brant Gaede]

48/hr

Erm something to do with being a competitive SOB. Also in my industry it is feast or famine. You basically get as much as you can while you can. When shit hits the fan like 2008 and the entire sector cancels all it's projects for 6months to a year you don't end up eating dog food and joining the pile of idiots that bought a quad, 3 skidoos, 2 trucks a camper a boat and took out a second mortgage to do so! 10 more years and I will be retiring at 55 with no debt. And should be able to live off of just the interest on my investments by then. (Last year they made 72000 just in interest)

Perhaps in 5 years I may even slow down to a 40-50 hour work week!

I REALLY like my career, but I DO look forward to my days off! I do not look at it as killing myself so much as running uphill! I also like being able to pay cash for stuff I REALLY want like erm..6000 cameras!

Assuming time and a half for overtime (in Canada?) you aren't paying that much in taxes as a percentage of income. I suspect you are paying more than you think you are if you add in taxes that aren't direct taxes on income. I know somebody in California paying 50% on income.

How do you know what investments to make? This is a general question. I'm not interested in what investments you do make, but how you control risk.

--Brant

[moralist]

In my field of expertise the government has changed the rules. A lot! The risk/reward is not there or I would have done it 15 years ago.

Sorry to hear that your job is controlled by the government, and hope you don't work for the government as that can even be worse. Employees, especially government public union employees, have big red targets painted on their backs. There's always a heavy penalty extracted in exchange for seeking job security. That's why I stay as far away from security as I can get by operating inside the rough and tumble private sector Capitalist free market as an independent business entity so as to enjoy corporate financial advantages without actually being one.

I have started a micro business as a hobby though!

Cool!

No matter what you're doing, experiment with your microbusiness. Almost all great discoveries are stumbled upon by accident while looking for something else. As a hobby, I produce automotive aftermarket performance products on a micro scale and am constantly dyno testing new ideas. It's no end of excitement and fun.

Greg

[Jules Troy]

Brant I get 1.5 and 2x. (Visible taxes around 40%)

60% equities /10%preferred shares/30%bonds

Greg hell no I'm private sector but work with radio isotopes so highly regulated, the licences and storage of said isotopes is very cost prohibitive..