Standing naked on my property

[Francisco Ferrer]

I don't see the word "right" in either of those passages. In fact, the word that comes closest to it is "privileges", something which is not at all like the concept of rights.

No, they're quite accurate descriptions of what you're doing.

ROFL. Where in the world is it a "well-established principle" that a child can be held liable for much of anything? In most Western jurisdictions they're not even capable of being tried for crimes. Go to court asking that the judge order a child to compensation for damage they've done to your garden and you'll be laughed out of the room.

So does my laser example. Even if force was the sole standard by which to judge laws, half the time you're not even using that word correctly, which only serves to reinforce my point that law is not reducible to sloganeering.

Hah! And that's where you're wrong. Most people don't believe taxation is theft, so what this amounts to is: "If doing something that's just is morally legitimate, then so is any other thing that's unjust.".

Are you really that literal-minded? There is no mention of "right" in Amendments III, V and VIII; that does not mean the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right against quartering of troops, a right against double jeopardy, or a right against excessive bail. There is no mention of "satellite" in the name of the Moon. Now go argue with someone that Earth does not have a natural satellite.

On damages caused by children, you are, once again, poorly informed. "Parental liability statutes impose liability on parents or guardians for the civil or criminal acts of their minor children. Virtually all states impose some degree of civil liability on parents for torts committed by their children." See here. I wrote, "If a child trespasses on a yard, the owner is entitled to demand that he cease and desist. If the child has damaged the lawn, the owner is entitled to seek compensation." I never said it would necessarily be the child that paid compensation.

If the laser in your example does not cause damage, then the case is not actionable. On the other hand, it would be another matter if the laser is weapons grade. You say that I have used the word "force" incorrectly, but you provide no evidence, only an unsupported assertion. To make your case, you may have to reconsider your sacred principle of not using definitions in arguments.

I may have made a mistake in debating with you. I had thought that you might be a reasonable person. But I do not know any educated person who seriously believes that the truth of a proposition is determined by how widely accepted it is. Sixty-three percent of Americans think the number of justices on the Supreme Court is a number other than nine. Ergo, the number of justices on the Supreme Court must a number other than nine. Right?

[Wolf DeVoon]

I do not know any educated person who seriously believes that the truth of a proposition is determined by how widely accepted it is.

The signing of the Declaration of Independence did not occur on July 4, 1776. The actual signing occurred on August 2, 1776.

Barack Obama July 4, 2010 message:

"Today we celebrate the 234th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence..."

George Bush July 4, 2007 message:

"Two hundred thirty-one years ago, 56 brave men signed their names..."

Bill Clinton July 4, 1996 proclamation:

"On this day each year, we gather with family and friends to commemorate the anniversary of

the signing of our Declaration of Independence."

[Darrell Hougen]

There tends to be some moral legitimacy in taxation as opposed to armed robbery because of general implicit consent to the first and none to the second. It's not just in kind or in principle but in amount. Yes, taxation is theft but it's not theft under the law. A not so good parallel example, but good enough for our purposes, was the interment of Japanese Americans in WWII in what were in principle concentration camps. The problem is Jews in Nazi concentration camps would have thought they had died and gone to heaven if they had suddenly found themselves in Manzanar. Or, as the SOB Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own.

--Brant

Brant, I'm not sure why lack of consent makes something theft. Is compelling a person pay damages "theft" if they don't want to comply? This is entirely separate from whether or not taxation is theft, of course. I also think most people, even "statists", understand the tale about times when you shouldn't follow the law.

Does an innocent person have to pay damages?

Darrell

[George H. Smith]

You can find almost any opinion you want online.

...including yours. How stupid of me to quote Stanford, Notre Dame, and Locke himself.

The Lord the Judge (says Jephtha) be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon, Judg. xi. 27. and then prosecuting, and relying on his appeal, he leads out his army to battle: and therefore in such controversies, where the question is put, who shall be judge? It cannot be meant, who shall decide the controversy; every one knows what Jephtha here tells us, that the Lord the Judge shall judge. Where there is no judge on earth, the appeal lies to God in heaven. (Second Treatise)

Do you have even a glimmer of understanding of what Locke meant by this passage? I seriously doubt it. But if I'm wrong, then my all means please share your interpretation with us.

You quotes are typically taken out of context. Even one of the articles you linked earlier was misrepresented. You are a blowhard who should not be taken seriously.

Ghs

[Darrell Hougen]

natural law...

...the right way for man to live is as a free, independent, rational being living in peace and harmony --- a system of mutual and reciprocal respect for the lives, liberty and property --- with other men.

1. An assertion is not an argument.

I'm not making an argument at this point. If you want to have that discussion, we can.

2. Locke asserts that the world was given by God to all of us equally.

I'm not defending everything Locke said. Locke is a good reference to the extent that he was one of the first to make an argument for natural rights. Some Objectivists object to the use of the term "natural rights" because many of the originators of that meme based their defense on religious arguments. However, I use the term to refer to the concept of rights based on the nature of man. They are like natural laws --- like the laws of physics. They are not legal rights based on the action of some legislature or judge.

3. Rand has a logical argument, that man's nature determines his needs, the imperative of reason, and liberty to act on it.

Indeed, and much more. Man's nature also determines the means by which he satisfies his needs.

4. Locke asserts an equal right to land and assumes that there is plenty of good land for all, which is untrue.

That doesn't really effect the validity of his larger point about natural rights.

5. Rand is sympathetic to "reciprocal respect" but her body of work addresses evil, mob rule, tragedy, and individuated liberation.

Her body of work addresses many things including reciprocal respect.

From Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: (emphasis added)

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”

A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort . . . .

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.

Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.

There is no such thing as “a right to a job”—there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.

Property rights and the right of free trade are man’s only “economic rights” (they are, in fact, political rights)—and there can be no such thing as “an economic bill of rights.” But observe that the advocates of the latter have all but destroyed the former.

6. It is a mistake to attribute to John Locke modern sensibilities he did not possess.

I'm not doing that.

Darrell

Edited September 3, 2014 by Darrell Hougen

[George H. Smith]

Here is a gem.

George conflated the claim of rights in the Declaration with the power conveyed in the Constitution. They had nothing in common.

Very sad to hear a "moral" justification again, made far worse by equivocation of painless "prudence." Sounded like a Quaker.

I didn't even mention the Constitution. Stop making things up.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Evidence abounds that we continue to view certain religious creeds, ethnic groups, and foreign lands as fit objects of war because (in Locke's words) faith may be broken with heretics.

If anyone doubts Wolf's intellectual dishonesty, an excellent example is provided by his attribution to Locke the view that "faith may be broken with heretics." Here is the context of Locke's remark:

...there are some opinions and actions which are in their natural tendency absolutely destructive to human society as, that faith may be broken with heretics....

This was said as part of Locke's criticism of some Catholic doctrines. He regarded the view attributed to him by Wolf as abhorrent, as "absolutely destructive of human society."

Those who accept anything quoted by Wolf at face value do so at their own risk. The guy is not to be trusted.

Ghs

Later edit: I neglected to mention the source of the quotation that Wolf butchered. It is from Locke's unpublished An Essay on Toleration, written c. 1667 and not to be confused with his later tract, A Letter Concerning Toleration. The Essay was written as Locke was retreating from his early conservatism and defending more liberal views. The complete essay is reprinted in Locke: Political Essays, ed. Mark Goldie (Cambridge University Press, 1997). The specific passage is found on p. 150. The Essay is probably available online, but I'm too lazy to get a link. -- Ghs

[Darrell Hougen]

Meh. Both labor theories strike me as rather arcane little ideas. Property, as far as I can tell, "is the gift of social law" and does not exist outside of society. It may be perfectly fine for me to build a building on some pristine land or it might not.

It is true that at least two people are required to make the idea of property relevant, but beyond that it is part and parcel of being human.

Consider two children playing with blocks. The first builds a tower and the second knocks it down. The first is upset for understandable reasons. When the second knocks down the tower built by the first, all of the creative effort of the first child in building something to his liking and for his own enjoyment is wasted. The notion of property protects a person in his expenditure of effort for his own ends. Even the child knows that the blocks, once arranged by his effort are his tower and he incensed when the other child knocks it down. Even at an early age he senses that some injustice has been done. That is how deeply ingrained the notion of property rights is.

Darrell

Yeah, I'm not so sure about your link between property and protecting effort. I'd venture to say making such a connection isn't necessary and there are cases where I'd say "X should belong to Y even though <insert something about effort>"; I'm not going to try to find a back reason for justifying an evolved social institution that has no major flaws in it. And even though your example about blocks may be extrapolated to some other situations, there are others where it won't work and other stuff needs to the heavy lifting. For example, it's hard to see how you could extrapolate it to roads, rivers, and the oceans. That aside, I do think your point about enjoyment does hold some water.

There is another important sense in which the notion of property protects human effort. Most of the things that we possess in the modern world were acquired through trade. There is virtually no unowned land or unowned natural resources to be exploited on the earth, although it could become an issue if people venture into space.

Most trade occurs using money. A person earns money and uses it to acquire the things that he desires. If his right to the things that he had acquired were not protected, the effort he expended in earning the money used to pay for them would be wasted. That is why we recognize a person's possessions as his property.

Of course, property rights are not the only consideration. I've been with you in arguing against Francisco on this issue. So, the issues of roads, rivers, and oceans are complex and involve other considerations such as freedom of movement and the availability of drinking water. If people had been using a river for watering their crops, it wouldn't make sense for someone upstream to be able to pollute the river. That could be partially handled by the notion of senior and junior water rights which might be considered a kind of property right, but I'm not an expert on water law and am not sure what kinds of problems might occur as a result of some sort of assertion of a water right.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

"Faith may be broken with heretics" was the Christian crusader attitude toward the Moslems, Pope sanctioned. Today it's vice versa, Muslims to non-Muslims if not different Muslim sects.

--Brant

pardon the gross over-simplification of history

Wolf: did you simply make a mistake?

[Darrell Hougen]

A inherits $5 billion in property, B is born a pauper. (Samson is on the right track with roads, rivers, and oceans.)

Life isn't fair. Two men are standing next to one another. Lightning strikes one but not the other. That may suck for the person that was struck, but one cannot argue with nature.

The proper purpose of government is not to make life fair. The leftists and statists insist that that is the purpose of government, but the proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. A person that works hard all his life and wishes to leave his fortune to his children has that right. That may suck for the man whose dad was a deadbeat, but it is not the proper purpose of government to "rectify" that situation.

We distinguish human rights as a set of natural liberties belonging in justice to mankind, and only to mankind, because the human understanding is a function of individual effort and a long series of self-determined choices in the conduct of one's life. These rights belong in strictly equal measure to every man, woman and child (in proportion to maturity) because the capacity and responsiblity of free choice exists equally for the intelligent and the stupid, rich and poor, native-born and alien immigrant. An intelligent man faces more complex questions, perhaps, than a slower sibling, but with no more or less responsibility to exercise his powers or let them fall into disuse and sloth.

A rich man has more responsibilities, if he is to retain and cultivate his wealth, and a poor man has fewer choices to pursue, if he is to make the most of his situation -- but neither is more or less equipped to adopt an honorable moral standard and live according to its mandate. A native son may love his country or spit on its cherished ideals. A newcomer must choose his destination with care, because no one in this life is guaranteed a pre-ordained satisfaction...

Despite a pretense of normalcy, the U.S. political stove is red hot. It demands our urgent attention as adult citizens. We are undeniably responsible for the safety and welfare of children, who perceive and mimic our emotional expressions, whether we are habitually glum or joyous or some smiling shadow of self. This is the power and deeper meaning of political history, believe it or not. If you feel that America is mostly free, mostly an unimpeded and open society, like a frontier full of adventure, then your kids will grow straight and tall in the conviction that life is an open road. However, this is a profoundly uncommon sense of American history. Most of us believe that liberty exists only in the bedroom, that elections and office holders are necessary, and that the adventure of living consists of pleasing neighbors, teachers, coworkers, customers, and cops, who want nothing fundamentally changed — ever.

...Conservatives, liberals, rednecks and Jews all bow their heads at the same national prayer breakfast, petitioning God for more of the same, thank you.

...This arrangement can and will be changed fairly soon. Help wanted.

[Laissez Faire Law, pp.10-11, 107, 110, 117]

Nice quote if a little cynical.

Darrell

[Wolf DeVoon]

Here is a gem.

George conflated the claim of rights in the Declaration with the power conveyed in the Constitution. They had nothing in common.

Very sad to hear a "moral" justification again, made far worse by equivocation of painless "prudence." Sounded like a Quaker.

I didn't even mention the Constitution. Stop making things up.

Ghs

Okay, fine, I'll go back and listen twice, make a verbatim transcript.

10:42

The original principle of the American government, according to its founders, was the protection of individual rights, especially those to life, liberty, and property. The intended form of the American government was republican, a type of limited democracy wherein majority rule is restricted by the constitutionally protected rights of the minority. America's founders repeatedly argued that form should always be subordinated to principle -- in other words, that democracy is justified only so long as it preserves freedom.

Articles of Confederation? Federal Convention of 1787? Madison's argument concerning factions in The Federalist No. X?

No guarantee of liberty in the U.S. Constitution as originally ratified -- it was a charter of enumerated powers, period.

[Selene]

Nice quote if a little cynical.

Darrell

A cynic is a humanist with experience.

A...

[Samson Corwell]

There tends to be some moral legitimacy in taxation as opposed to armed robbery because of general implicit consent to the first and none to the second. It's not just in kind or in principle but in amount. Yes, taxation is theft but it's not theft under the law. A not so good parallel example, but good enough for our purposes, was the interment of Japanese Americans in WWII in what were in principle concentration camps. The problem is Jews in Nazi concentration camps would have thought they had died and gone to heaven if they had suddenly found themselves in Manzanar. Or, as the SOB Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own.

--Brant

Brant, I'm not sure why lack of consent makes something theft. Is compelling a person pay damages "theft" if they don't want to comply? This is entirely separate from whether or not taxation is theft, of course. I also think most people, even "statists", understand the tale about times when you shouldn't follow the law.

Does an innocent person have to pay damages?

Darrell

Obviously not, but it was a comparison, though not one that should be used as a direct argument for taxation.

[George H. Smith]

2. Locke asserts that the world was given by God to all of us equally.

This was a truism in Locke's time, a premise that had been defended for centuries by Christian philosophers. Locke's purpose in the Second Treatise was to show how private ownership, including private property in land, could be justified, despite this original common ownership.

4. Locke asserts an equal right to land and assumes that there is plenty of good land for all, which is untrue.

Locke posited this condition for a primitive state of society. Again, you have distorted his key argument for private property, which applies even where land is not super-abundant. Perhaps "distorted" is inaccurate, since I doubt if you even understand his argument in the first place, in which case there would be nothing for you to distort.

Ghs

[Samson Corwell]

Nice quote if a little cynical.

Darrell

A cynic is a humanist with experience.

A...

I think "disappointed idealist on the inside" is more accurate, but yours is truthful, too.

[George H. Smith]

Here is a gem.

George conflated the claim of rights in the Declaration with the power conveyed in the Constitution. They had nothing in common.

Very sad to hear a "moral" justification again, made far worse by equivocation of painless "prudence." Sounded like a Quaker.

I didn't even mention the Constitution. Stop making things up.

Ghs

Okay, fine, I'll go back and listen twice, make a verbatim transcript.

The linked video was only a fragment -- around one-quarter of the complete talk. Here is the complete version.

Ghs

[Samson Corwell]

Life isn't fair. Two men are standing next to one another. Lightning strikes one but not the other. That may suck for the person that was struck, but one cannot argue with nature.

The proper purpose of government is not to make life fair. The leftists and statists insist that that is the purpose of government, but the proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. A person that works hard all his life and wishes to leave his fortune to his children has that right. That may suck for the man whose dad was a deadbeat, but it is not the proper purpose of government to "rectify" that situation.

I don't think you need to stop using the word "fair" just because some other people use it differently. Justice is sort of about fairness, no? It would be unfair if you and someone else got different sentences for the same crime.

[Samson Corwell]

Her body of work addresses many things including reciprocal respect.

From Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: (emphasis added)

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”

A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort . . . .

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.

Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.

There is no such thing as “a right to a job”—there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.

Property rights and the right of free trade are man’s only “economic rights” (they are, in fact, political rights)—and there can be no such thing as “an economic bill of rights.” But observe that the advocates of the latter have all but destroyed the former.

Well, that particular passage was nauseatingly reductionist. That aside, I think she bombs in trying to make her point with regard to "individual rights versus group rights". Take "consumer rights". A single consumer or all of them, it doesn't really change the way you slice it.

[Darrell Hougen]

Life isn't fair. Two men are standing next to one another. Lightning strikes one but not the other. That may suck for the person that was struck, but one cannot argue with nature.

The proper purpose of government is not to make life fair. The leftists and statists insist that that is the purpose of government, but the proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. A person that works hard all his life and wishes to leave his fortune to his children has that right. That may suck for the man whose dad was a deadbeat, but it is not the proper purpose of government to "rectify" that situation.

I don't think you need to stop using the word "fair" just because some other people use it differently. Justice is sort of about fairness, no? It would be unfair if you and someone else got different sentences for the same crime.

I'm not suggesting dropping the word "fair". Obviously, it does have proper uses and fairness with respect to legal proceedings is one of them. But, having fair legal proceedings is very different from making life fair. Life will never be fair.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Her body of work addresses many things including reciprocal respect.

From Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: (emphasis added)

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”

A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort . . . .

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.

Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.

There is no such thing as “a right to a job”—there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.

Property rights and the right of free trade are man’s only “economic rights” (they are, in fact, political rights)—and there can be no such thing as “an economic bill of rights.” But observe that the advocates of the latter have all but destroyed the former.

Well, that particular passage was nauseatingly reductionist. That aside, I think she bombs in trying to make her point with regard to "individual rights versus group rights". Take "consumer rights". A single consumer or all of them, it doesn't really change the way you slice it.

What do you mean by "consumer rights"?

I hope you understand the context of the above quote. Rand was responding the Democratic Party platform which asserted that workers had a right to a job and a bunch of other nonsense.

Consumers have the right not to be ripped off if that's what you mean, but everyone has that right. One doesn't get special rights by playing a particular role.

Darrell

[George H. Smith]

Here is a gem.

George conflated the claim of rights in the Declaration with the power conveyed in the Constitution. They had nothing in common.

Very sad to hear a "moral" justification again, made far worse by equivocation of painless "prudence." Sounded like a Quaker.

I didn't even mention the Constitution. Stop making things up.

Ghs

Okay, fine, I'll go back and listen twice, make a verbatim transcript.

10:42

The original principle of the American government, according to its founders, was the protection of individual rights, especially those to life, liberty, and property. The intended form of the American government was republican, a type of limited democracy wherein majority rule is restricted by the constitutionally protected rights of the minority. America's founders repeatedly argued that form should always be subordinated to principle -- in other words, that democracy is justified only so long as it preserves freedom.

Articles of Confederation? Federal Convention of 1787? Madison's argument concerning factions in The Federalist No. X?

No guarantee of liberty in the U.S. Constitution as originally ratified -- it was a charter of enumerated powers, period.

As I said, I never mentioned the U.S. Constitution. To mention, in passing, the intended purpose of a constitution differs from a discussion of the particulars of a constitution.

I am not a fan of the U.S. Constitution, btw. I have posted various criticisms of it in previous OL threads, as well as in many lectures over the years.

Ghs

[Darrell Hougen]

2. Locke asserts that the world was given by God to all of us equally.

This was a truism in Locke's time, a premise that had been defended for centuries by Christian philosophers. Locke's purpose in the Second Treatise was to show how private ownership, including private property in land, could be justified, despite this original common ownership.

4. Locke asserts an equal right to land and assumes that there is plenty of good land for all, which is untrue.

Locke posited this condition for a primitive state of society. Again, you have distorted his key argument for private property, which applies even where land is not super-abundant. Perhaps "distorted" is inaccurate, since I doubt if you even understand his argument in the first place, in which case there would be nothing for you to distort.

Ghs

Thanks for clarifying those passages.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

Here is a gem.

George conflated the claim of rights in the Declaration with the power conveyed in the Constitution. They had nothing in common.

Very sad to hear a "moral" justification again, made far worse by equivocation of painless "prudence." Sounded like a Quaker.

I didn't even mention the Constitution. Stop making things up.

Ghs

Okay, fine, I'll go back and listen twice, make a verbatim transcript.

10:42

The original principle of the American government, according to its founders, was the protection of individual rights, especially those to life, liberty, and property. The intended form of the American government was republican, a type of limited democracy wherein majority rule is restricted by the constitutionally protected rights of the minority. America's founders repeatedly argued that form should always be subordinated to principle -- in other words, that democracy is justified only so long as it preserves freedom.

Articles of Confederation? Federal Convention of 1787? Madison's argument concerning factions in The Federalist No. X?

No guarantee of liberty in the U.S. Constitution as originally ratified -- it was a charter of enumerated powers, period.

Well, the enumeration of powers is effective limiting of powers to keep any other powers from delimiting rights. Not what came to be in practice. I think the Constitution should be interpreted both by original intent and by references to the Declaration of Independence, the former for the law and the latter for the philosophy behind the law. Your "period" does not apply for it destroys context and intent and interpretation. I doubt if there's any Supreme Court decision since Marshall that said "period," at least for the majority. The Amendments to the Constitution are all part of it including the Bill of Rights, but I digress too much.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Here is a gem.

George conflated the claim of rights in the Declaration with the power conveyed in the Constitution. They had nothing in common.

Very sad to hear a "moral" justification again, made far worse by equivocation of painless "prudence." Sounded like a Quaker.

I didn't even mention the Constitution. Stop making things up.

Ghs

Okay, fine, I'll go back and listen twice, make a verbatim transcript.

10:42

The original principle of the American government, according to its founders, was the protection of individual rights, especially those to life, liberty, and property. The intended form of the American government was republican, a type of limited democracy wherein majority rule is restricted by the constitutionally protected rights of the minority. America's founders repeatedly argued that form should always be subordinated to principle -- in other words, that democracy is justified only so long as it preserves freedom.

Articles of Confederation? Federal Convention of 1787? Madison's argument concerning factions in The Federalist No. X?

No guarantee of liberty in the U.S. Constitution as originally ratified -- it was a charter of enumerated powers, period.

Well, the enumeration of powers is effective limiting of powers to keep any other powers from delimiting rights. Not what came to be.

--Brant

Correct. The enumeration of powers was widely viewed as a "guarantee of liberty" insofar as the Federal Government was not supposed to exercise powers that were not expressly delegated. But that didn't work out, obviously, thanks largely to Alexander Hamilton and his ilk.

Also, there are few, if very few, explicit guarantees of liberty in the body of the original Constitution (i.e., minus the Bill of Rights), such as the banning of religious tests for holding political office. Also, the Preamble lists as one of its purposes to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Ghs

[Samson Corwell]

Her body of work addresses many things including reciprocal respect.

From Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: (emphasis added)

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”

A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort . . . .

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.

Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.

There is no such thing as “a right to a job”—there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.

Property rights and the right of free trade are man’s only “economic rights” (they are, in fact, political rights)—and there can be no such thing as “an economic bill of rights.” But observe that the advocates of the latter have all but destroyed the former.

Well, that particular passage was nauseatingly reductionist. That aside, I think she bombs in trying to make her point with regard to "individual rights versus group rights". Take "consumer rights". A single consumer or all of them, it doesn't really change the way you slice it.

What do you mean by "consumer rights"?

I hope you understand the context of the above quote. Rand was responding the Democratic Party platform which asserted that workers had a right to a job and a bunch of other nonsense.

Consumers have the right not to be ripped off if that's what you mean, but everyone has that right. One doesn't get special rights by playing a particular role.

Darrell

I'm using "consumer rights" as people normally talk about as an example. It's a turn of phrase, just like "states' rights", "money's not speech", etc. It's a political slogan. As such, there's not much use in dissecting it as if there were some hidden meaning. I'm not saying I endorse it.