Comments on this quote from "How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society?"

[Mike11]

Just a side issue not addressed directly here that I think deserves some consideration. Out of everyone here I'm furthest removed, I think, from Objectivism in both my personal beliefs and tribal affiliation. I've never dared to speak to someone face to face after learning Atlas was their favorite book and would not go to any Objectivist clubs. My knowledge of Objectivism is based on other sources and my own external observations of their online communities. Those disclaimers said I think this passage really explains why there is so much petty tribalism going on. However, like all my posts, don't expect this to be coherently argued....

Roland Barthes traced the origins of the virtue of lucidity to the emerging structure of power, which used the means of law, in France. The idea that one must state, clearly and succinctly, what one believes was a way for the emerging State to understand and thus control its subjects. Now I'mot sure if this is true and I think in a legal context its obviously required but any power structure would demand this sort of thing.

Whether Rand intended this passage to assist in the maintenance of the Objectivist hierarchy is beside the point, I believe it has come to function in this way and has become a major justification for it. We have, I think, all agreed Rand's instructions to be unrealistic or undesirable for various reasons. One can not be called upon to justify one's beliefs at the drop of the hat, especially not in the black and white ways Rand and the Roids seem to prefer. Because of this, in my mind, the lines become so blurred that any statement or lack of codified beliefs on any issue can be made either White as John Galt's Own Cigarette or Black as Toohey's Gallant Gallstone. Let me give an example of 2 equally likely conversations:

Pope Lenny: What is your evaluation of continued beer bottle throwing along the Ontario/Quebec border?

Young Roid: I don't know. I'm from there but haven't thought of it much.

Lenny: *likes the cut of the Roid's jib* Well, surely the mind can not properly integrate Everything but what do you think on a preliminary basis?

Young Roid: Well, it seems to me (or, "my feeling is") that Quebec has legitimate grievances.

Lenny: *still likes the cut of his jib* I see your point young man. Have you read my book?.......

Or, take 2:

Pope Lenny: What is your evaluation of continued beer bottle throwing along the Ontario/Quebec border?

Young Roid: I don't know. I'm from there but haven't thought of it much.

Lenny: *Thinks the young roid is fat or reminds him of his mother* What!?! You mean you EVADE!?!?!?!?!?!?! Out with it man! What do you believe!!!

Young Roid: Well, it seems to me (or, "my feeling is") that Quebec has legitimate grievances.

Lenny: *Still thinks the Roid looks like his mother* Seems!?!?!? "Legitimate!?!?! The problem (since its the only thing Peikoff feels confidant thinking about and thus having this full description of his own belief on) is Quebec is a fundamentally mystical and altruist society! Would you have the Canadians immolate themselves on the fleurs-de-lis! You have done nothing but evade the issue and refuse to see the true cause of the dispute, not the mundane earthly dispute but the dispute of ideas! Now leave here! :frantics:

k Joel...... cool it.....

So that is how, and why, I think the idea is so powerful among the Roids.

As a side note, notice I had Lenny's confidence in his ideas a factor. If having a codified belief, not actual truth and logic, is what determines one's possibilities of acceptance and expulsion than you will stick to what you know is the party line. In Peikoff's case you stick to what you "know" which is philosophy and will thus, because you're less likely to acknowledge truth outside of it, see the world only by what your capable of easily defining/regurgitating.

I hope that post made sense and that it contributes.

[william.scherk]

Also in the Virtue of Selfishness:

But to pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility. To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil. Just as a judge in a court of law may err, when the evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire or fear to obstruct his mind's judgment of the facts of reality—so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind, where the responsibility is more awesome than in a public tribunal, because, he, the judge, is the only one to know when he has been impeached.

There is a certain pitiless grandeur to these pronouncements -- and to the pronouncements on moral rectitude, which grandeur makes them attractive: we can be perfect judges, we can be gods! But Barbara has pointed out the pitfalls.

Moreover, Rand's later life shows where constant moral inventories may lead, whether in love or in friendships and alliances.

***

Michael's notes on "most people" reminded me of something Rand said in her interview with Mike Wallace:

AR: Every business has to have its own terms, its own kind of currency, and in love, the currency is virtue . . . you love them for their values, their virtues, which they have achieved in their own characters. You love them only if they deserve it.

MW: If a man is weak, or a woman is weak, then he is beyond, she is beyond love?

AR: He certainly doesn't deserve it. He certainly is beyond. If a man wants love he should correct his weaknesses or his flaws, and he may deserve it. But he cannot expect the unearned, neither in love nor in money.

MW: There are few of us in the world, by your standards, who are worthy of love?

AR: Unfortunately, yes, very few. But it is open to everybody to make themselves worthy of it, and that is all my morality offers them -- a way to make themselves worthy of love, though that is not the primary objective.

The first time I heard this, I thought: yeah, but just about everyone gets love anyway. Whether they deserve it or not. What she seemed to be getting at was that "most people" certainly did not deserve her love -- and that she had a rather limited supply on hand in any case.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Wolf -

Are you serious?

Bill P (Alfonso)

I have body of work that I have to stand behind. Quite amazing, really, how little of it is embarrassing and yet how much, because it's been ignored. I think I'm right on the facts. Liberty entails the right to wrong and get away with most of it. Government is unable to do much of anything to 'control' people. Look how the project in Iraq is going, for instance. It would have been cheaper and faster to hand each Iraqi family of four a check for $100,000 and a plane ticket to Palmdale, in exchange for their claim of patrimony (whatever that is) to the last remaining elephant, so the Pentagon can fly, drive, steam, and clank another decade for a purpose that escapes me at the moment but has something to do with aggressively stamping out the threat of aggression.

:whistle:

[Alfonso Jones]

Wolf -

Are you serious?

Bill P (Alfonso)

I have body of work that I have to stand behind. Quite amazing, really, how little of it is embarrassing and yet how much, because it's been ignored. I think I'm right on the facts. Liberty entails the right to wrong and get away with most of it. Government is unable to do much of anything to 'control' people. Look how the project in Iraq is going, for instance. It would have been cheaper and faster to hand each Iraqi family of four a check for $100,000 and a plane ticket to Palmdale, in exchange for their claim of patrimony (whatever that is) to the last remaining elephant, so the Pentagon can fly, drive, steam, and clank another decade for a purpose that escapes me at the moment but has something to do with aggressively stamping out the threat of aggression.

:whistle:

So in the paragraph:

For the reason given above, I claim to know something about error and deliberate wrongdoing. Frankly, I'm in favor of it, including but not limited to homosexuality, misappropriation of funds, lies, conscription of the willing, reckless fatherhood, high-speed games of chance, contraband, and gross negligence in tax matters. Liberty entails the right to do wrong and get away with most of it. Half of all murders go unsolved, unless you're living in Central America or Africa, where criminal investigation is especially weak.

You mean it - the parts about misappropriation of funds? "The right to do wrong and get away with most of it?" What does "half of all murders go unsolved mean" - a justification of murder???

I think I"m reading you too linearly when you may just be on a rant, but can you clarify? In your view of rights do you affirm that folks have the right to initiate force via misappropriation of funds? To murder? Etc...?

I suspect there is some irony here I'm missing, some missing "not" or a context change I've missed.

Bill P

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] Just consider the ability of those eyes to "swallow one up!" [....]

About AR's eyes...

A quick comment. I have more extensive comments I want to make about Greg Nyquist's, in my view, ridiculous categorization of AR as a "Utopian." But of that I'll have to wait till next week.

Meanwhile, re her eyes...

Recently, at a restaurant which is one of the four local restaurants where I sometimes have dinner by myself on evenings when Larry is teaching late, there was a waitress...

She was new; I hadn't seen her before. Her facial structure was similar to AR's. And her eyes... large eyes, ones that caught light from any angle; disproportionately large irises, dark brown in color.

I found myself as if "mesmerized," feeling almost compelled to look into those dark "pools," as it were. I remembered those occasions -- three -- when, talking with AR, I looked directly into those eyes of hers.

So many people have spoken of the mesmerizing effect she had in direct converse. Unlike the waitress, she had a power of personality, an intensity of questioning, a conviction in her own beliefs.

I think that I can understand how people who "came under" her direct spell did so. I felt warned off earlier by my reading of things she said; I didn't want any result of "coming under" her direct spell. But I think I understand how powerful that spell could be...even, for instance, for someone like John Hospers, who, many years later, after her death, still spoke of "want[ing] to be mesmerized by those piercing eyes once again." (See for the reference the end of the long excerpt from his Liberty memoir which I recently posted -- here).

Ellen

___

Edited May 10, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

[comment addressed to Wolf]

I think I"m reading you too linearly when you may just be on a rant, but can you clarify?

I've come to think that the majority of Wolf's writing -- except maybe posts of his on the "Financial Mayhem" thread -- amounts to being rants, albeit written with considerable flair for writing. I was for awhile impressed on the "Altruism" thread by excerpts from his essays, but the more I've read the details, the less I've found any consistency in the ideas. Nor have I seen instances of Wolf's answering pointed questions asked re his inconsistencies. I wouldn't worry your head much over expecting clarification.

Sorry, Wolf, to make such a dismissive comment, but it's the conclusion I've come to on pursuing your various essays and your posts here.

Ellen

___

Edited May 10, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Wolf DeVoon]

Sorry, Wolf

Ow.

However, I take exception to the charge of not clarifying. Ask away. Do we live in defacto anarchy? Yes. Do humans have an absolute right to such liberty, a metaphysical imperative to drive the course of their lives? Sure. Does that include the right to lie, cheat, steal, kill? Yes per We The Living, Anthem, Atlas Shrugged. Francisco shot striking steelworkers by the dozen.

I understand that you would prefer to obey a categorical moral imperative. Thou shalt never do anything to inconvenience anyone without their consent. With love and respect, I regret to inform you that the world is a much rougher place than that. The problems faced by freemen are bad enough to justify action, but certainly you must know Burma is a desperately evil hell, where food aid was impounded by the ruling gang the very minute U.N. aircraft touched down and every dollar donated to Google's guilt-ridden Burma slush fund will go straight into Cuffy Meigs' pockets.

Whether it's the FLDS in Texas or a million cases a year of acid thrown in women's faces in India, life is life on life's terms. How to lead a rational life in an irrational society? Heh. Ron Merrill asked that same question. Here's what I said in reply:

Take a job at Disney-ABC, if you want to live in an irrational society (or if you believe that "an irrational society" exists in reality). Folks who ask the above question are trying to duck responsibility for living life on life's terms. As a principle of metaphysics, irrational neighbors are impotent and irrelevant to a rational person's destiny. No More Mr Nice Guy

Ellen, you win. I quit. Nothing further to see here, folks.

:getlost:

[tjohnson]

As a side note, notice I had Lenny's confidence in his ideas a factor. If having a codified belief, not actual truth and logic, is what determines one's possibilities of acceptance and expulsion than you will stick to what you know is the party line. In Peikoff's case you stick to what you "know" which is philosophy and will thus, because you're less likely to acknowledge truth outside of it, see the world only by what your capable of easily defining/regurgitating.

If the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen, you win. I quit. Nothing further to see here, folks.

Wolf,

Don't worry about Ellen. She's like that sometimes and she only speaks for herself, as is the case of everyone here.

You should see when she and I get into it.

I think she's kinda cute. For instance, I hadn't heard piffle in at least 25 years...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry, Ellen, I think you miss the point about Wolf. His stance is practical libertarianism; his basic referent is how things are. He really isn't into philosophical discussions; he's concerned about where the bullets will hit so he won't be there when they do. Yes, we all do have the right to lie, cheat (whom?), steal (from whom?) and kill; but I don't recall he ever actualy said we had the right to violate rights. All of Francisco's killing in Atlas, for example, are quite arguably self-defense. Ragnar stole a bunch--from looters.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mars Shall Thunder is rant?

The Freeman's Constitution is rant?

Come on. Let's get real.

I just don't feel like going on (and there is plenty to go on with). Some things are just too obvious to take seriously.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

As a side note, notice I had Lenny's confidence in his ideas a factor. If having a codified belief, not actual truth and logic, is what determines one's possibilities of acceptance and expulsion than you will stick to what you know is the party line. In Peikoff's case you stick to what you "know" which is philosophy and will thus, because you're less likely to acknowledge truth outside of it, see the world only by what your capable of easily defining/regurgitating.

If the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

If you're a nail everything looks like a hammer--or a piece of wood.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Mars Shall Thunder is rant?

The Freeman's Constitution is rant?

Come on. Let's get real.

I just don't feel like going on (and there is plenty to go on with). Some things are just too obvious to take seriously.

Michael

I have not read Mars Shall Thunder.

I have read The Freeman's Constitution three times now. Have you read it? If so, I'd be curious to read your synopsis of what you think it says. I couldn't provide such a synopsis.

Ellen, who's "like that sometimes" and has this "kinda cute" way of asking for coherence.

___

[syrakusos]

My own rule of thumb is this: if I like or dislike someone whom I don't know reasonably well, I will bear in mind my emotional reaction. It may be that my subconscious is wiser than my conscious thinking, (as it often is) and I am emotionally grasping something important about him, which the facts will eventually bear out. So I don't discard my emotional reaction, but if possible I will continue observing him until the facts either bear out or contradict that reaction. Only then will I be prepared to pass judgment. And if it's not possible or in my interest to continue observing him, then I must be content to be left with only the knowledge of my own emotional reaction to him, but not with the knowledge by which to morally judge his character.

Barbara

Thank you for the insight. You seem to leave a lot of gray area there, admitting that you might like (or dislike) someone for reasons of your own, but withholding final judgment until you have more facts. I can live with that.

The passage I wrote, which you quoted and replied to, was a bit tortured. I had originally written "... you ... you... you..." (when you... if you...) and then realized, of course, that I would not know the anonymous reader, but could only be writing about me, me, me.

I know how this is going to sound, but hear me out...

I try to find the good in everyone, to find within my relationships that which is positive for both of us. Now, of course, we Objectivist are wont to point out that a mass murderer who runs errands for his neighbor is still evil. That gets to Stuart Haiyashi's "metaphysical impossibilities." How many of us actually have mass murderers for neighbors or co-workers? Most people are just not that interesting. I work with a guy who is a Baptist minister. Like me, a professional guard, he got the call to the Lord in middle age, earned a couple of degrees and went to work in a church. Now, he is the minister. He's a nice guy. In fact, he is one of the key people in our operation. As frontline supervisors come and go, upper managment looks to him as the leader in our team. I know that I can rely on him operationally. Done right, security is NOT "police work." We are consierges. His humanity, his understanding of human emotions and motivations makes our job easier. He gets compliance from people in ways that the ex-cops among us do not. It would not make much sense for me to engage him on philosophical issues. That would only degrade our relationship.

In your case, Barbara, I sense that you dropped that relationship with your conversationalist because you felt threatened by whatever else you discovered. That would be a rational response, all things considered. You did not say, "Oh no, he could not really be like that!" You accepted the facts as you found them. That is the objective way to live your life.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] I take exception to the charge of not clarifying. Ask away.

Thus far, I haven't noticed your answering when people have asked for clarification. Could be of course that I've missed clarifications.

For instance, I've asked before -- but I don't think you've answered -- what you mean by a "right." On the one hand you've declared see, e.g. that:

Natural rights are 'nonsense on stilts' as Bentham put it.

And yet you turn around and make statements like:

[my emphasis]

Do we live in defacto anarchy? Yes. Do humans have an absolute right to such liberty, a metaphysical imperative to drive the course of their lives? Sure.

Sure leaves me thinking you're contradicting yourself.

I understand that you would prefer to obey a categorical moral imperative. Thou shalt never do anything to inconvenience anyone without their consent.

Well, if you "understand" that, you've misunderstood something I've written. I'd like to see a quote from me which you've interpreted as stated.

The rest of your post leaves me wondering, what is your point?

Ellen

___

[tjohnson]

If you're a nail everything looks like a hammer--or a piece of wood.

--Brant

Brant, that's a different metaphor - what does it mean?

[Brant Gaede]

If you're a nail everything looks like a hammer--or a piece of wood.

--Brant

Brant, that's a different metaphor - what does it mean?

Satire on your cliche.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

I've asked before -- but I don't think you've answered -- what you mean by a "right." On the one hand you've declared see, e.g. that:

Natural rights are 'nonsense on stilts' as Bentham put it.

And yet you turn around and make statements like:

[my emphasis]

Do we live in defacto anarchy? Yes. Do humans have an absolute right to such liberty, a metaphysical imperative to drive the course of their lives? Sure.

Sure leaves me thinking you're contradicting yourself.

Sigh. An absolute moral right to drive the course of one's life.

Not to be confused with right turns, the right way to spell cat, constitutional right, or right away.

I'm going to cool off. I do not enjoy being in a snit, putting it politely.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen, who's "like that sometimes" and has this "kinda cute" way of asking for coherence.

Ellen,

Asking for coherence wasn't the part I found kinda cute.

But I promise, I'll think about it.

After all, if a body of work is nothing but rants, that is tantamount to saying it's pretty coherent. On the other hand, saying a body of work does not have ideas at root, merely rants, should be backed up by quotes for proper coherency of the observation itself.

I'll do the synopsis later. God knows why, but I'll do it for you. It sounded like a double-dog dare, so that probably tickled an itch in my macho animus. Hell, I might even toss in some analysis (from my perspective) on the philosophical underpinnings.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I've asked before -- but I don't think you've answered -- what you mean by a "right." On the one hand you've declared see, e.g. that:

Natural rights are 'nonsense on stilts' as Bentham put it.

And yet you turn around and make statements like:

[my emphasis]

Do we live in defacto anarchy? Yes. Do humans have an absolute right to such liberty, a metaphysical imperative to drive the course of their lives? Sure.

Sure leaves me thinking you're contradicting yourself.

Sigh. An absolute moral right to drive the course of one's life.

Not to be confused with right turns, the right way to spell cat, constitutional right, or right away.

I'm going to cool off. I do not enjoy being in a snit, putting it politely.

After you've cooled off, you might want to notice that "natural rights" -- which you said you agreed with Bentham are "nonsense on stilts" -- are considered by natural rights theorists to be "absolute moral right to drive the course of one's life."

Here's a link to a brief description of the theory:

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1206.html

Possibly what you meant is that you consider the idea of the "social contract" and/or the idea of the original innocence of the "state of nature" nonsensical, but if that's what you meant, it's not what you said.

Ellen

___

[Wolf DeVoon]

Ellen,

Glad to see that the history link you cited mentioned James Otis. Great, great man, an honest and courageous lawyer, nearly beaten to death and permanently crippled (severe brain injury) by British tax collectors.*

"State of nature" customarily refers to the theories of Rousseau and Hobbes. "Social contract" scholarship often includes Kant and Hegel, Bentham and Mill, the British Fabians, I.W.W., trade unionism, Upton Sinclair, UK-Australian-Canadian socialized medicine, and much of the U.S. mainstream political creed. What are disaster relief, interstate highways, free public education, progressive taxation, subsidized housing, AFDC, Social Security, Medicare, bailout of Continental Illinois, Texas S&Ls, Bear Stearns and more to come, if not a social contract?

All of it, every word of it (state of nature, social contract) was concocted to justify, prioritize and legitimize the state. Locke was a nice fellow, bright man, original thinker. Did more to advance the notion of human dignity than anyone else in human history, except Grotius, Voltaire, and Thomas Paine. The problem with Paine's 'Rights of Man' was not wrong-headedness, but incompleteness.

Voltaire, Locke, Paine, Otis, Jefferson saw the problem as obvious injustice. They wanted to dethrone hereditary monarchy, state religion and landed aristocracy. They won the argument, especially in America, which is nice because we all benefited, worldwide. Very nice. However --

Ayn Rand was the greatest of all political thinkers (if you ignore her second-hand recycled Locke, later in life, under the glare and seduction of pop stardom). Government was convincingly shown to be an incompetent farce in Anthem, Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged. That's where I began my work on the philosophy of law, freed from government, natural rights, social contract or any other received theory of public justice.

One of the most important ideas I pursued was to distinguish morality from legality:

"Sadly, a moral principle never reaches beyond itself. Its ethical arms are too short, extending no farther than one man's soul, one man's purpose and lifespan. We have to look elsewhere for political guidance, because the thing at issue is 'a nation of laws and not of men...' The concept of wrong is fundamental to the administration of justice. It's not an ethical term, but a logical and judicial one, implied by due process. No man should judge his own cause (True or false, right or wrong?) If false, courts would not exist; you'd have a right to conduct your affairs any way you please. If it's true, that no man should judge his own cause, then judicial procedures must be objective and fair. Anything less would be wrong as a matter of legal principle." Principles of Internet Law

"The philosophy of law is a separate branch of science, independent of ethics. Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: What shall I do? Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs." Freeman's Constitution

"The rule of law has nothing to do with a sovereign state, except in the narrow sense that such states exist and when they comply with the rule of law they are viewed as 'legal persons' (litigants) possessed of competent legal standing to sue or be sued with the presumption of innocence, no greater or lesser in legal character than a single infant child... Due process is not an end in itself. There is a principle which logically informs due process -- the presumption of innocence. The most important implementation is an enduring, uninterruptable right to petition the courts, which includes habeas corpus to inquire whether someone's liberty is being wrongly denied... I hereby certify that the law cannot catch or deter a clever evildoer. That's not the purpose of law, which exists first as a means of restraining mob violence, ignorant prejudice, and statist tyranny. If we apprehend a callous predator, from time to time, that's laudatory. But ending systemic, wholesale injustice is far more urgent, especially the heavy lifting of securing constitutional rights, which are few in number -- no summary punishment, fair trial by jury, no perjury, no secret evidence, and the right of appeal to ensure fundamental fairness." The Rule of Law

I know everyone's tired of me linking to those archives, expecting some recognition. Aint gonna happen, okay. I accept that. But please do not try to hold my feet to the fire about moral rights. Morality is not a meaningful concept in constitutional law.

W.

"As far as I'm concerned, liberty is non-negotiable and I am not susceptible to universal moral principles, utilitarian or otherwise. I view morality as a personal matter, in the context of my unique situation, inquiring What shall I do? (not what must all men and women in all circumstances do). To me it seems plain that women and men have contrary moral purposes. More importantly, each individual is a separate case." NAP This

* The story of Otis' mental decline is disputed by some scholars. The fact of severe head injury is not.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Ellen Stuttle]

Wolf,

Possibly someone else reading your post above can figure out what you believe you answered in regard to the inconsistency concerning which I queried you. I can't.

Bon voyage,

And over and out. I have no desire to pursue a discussion wherein, instead of getting clarification, I get lengthy further...what exactly? A disquistion, reading which has brought me no nearer to undertanding what you mean by "a right."

Ellen

___

[Wolf DeVoon]

Doreen, take this down, make a note for future reference, my epitaph: 'Possibly someone else will understand me.'

Wolf's definition of constitutional right: a discretionary, enduring legal power or privilege, the exercise of which may not exceed, evade, impede, obstruct, or pervert the interests of efficient and fundamentally fair public justice.

Pretty simple, really.

B)

[Brant Gaede]

Wolf,

Possibly someone else reading your post above can figure out what you believe you answered in regard to the inconsistency concerning which I queried you. I can't.

Bon voyage,

And over and out. I have no desire to pursue a discussion wherein, instead of getting clarification, I get lengthy further...what exactly? A disquistion, reading which has brought me no nearer to undertanding what you mean by "a right."

Ellen___

Wolf stated he eschewed "natural rights" for legal philosophy so he's essentially talking like a lawyer, not a political philosopher. He thereby has an analogous, but different position here as General Semanticist. He will no more tell us what a right is than GS will tell us what a definition is--that is, what is said is not interesting or valuable to a philosophical discussion.

"Over and out" is a contradiction. "Over" means I'm done and it's your turn. "Out" means I'm done (and so are you--end of transmission). I learned this over 43 years ago in the army, but Hollywood still screws it up, infecting and affecting the common parlance.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

I see little difference between Wolf's idea of rights and yours (based on what I have read in your posts) in one fundamental respect. Once you divorce human values from the premise of rights and use another idea as an "end-in-itself" starting point, you can only take the logic to where it leads. In your case, natural rights, NIOF or whatever you want to call it is the primary. In Wolf's case, government as a universal form of human organization is the primary. In both cases, human nature is not the primary.

Let me open a parentheses and say that I am not sure what you hold to be proper rights. I am attributing the classical libertarian view to you because this is what you most discuss when we talk about defining rights, etc. All my statements attributing this position to you should be understood as qualified by my lack of knowledge of your personal beliefs, thus they may not be 100% accurate.

Back to the point. In your case, rights always apply to the individual, irrespective of context or even species. This is why this concept can be extended to animal rights, plant rights, etc. Hairs can be split, names can be dropped, obvious exaggerations can be denied, but what cannot be denied is the logic of applying a concept beyond human beings if human beings are not present in the concept in the first place.

In Wolf's case, rights always apply to citizens (or guests) under a government. His starting point is not only human beings, but human beings in organized group (verified by observation). This is at the other end of the rainbow from where you start. In his writing (at least what I have read so far), government can be good or bad by differing standards, but it is always present at the root in defining rights.

In my own thinking, I have come to peace with NIOF and natural rights and set limitations based on human nature. Now I am starting to think through Wolf's idea and I am starting to believe that, without stating it, the missing part of human nature in the traditional libertarian approach is included in his view (the "group" or "species" part of human nature). However, instead of stating this, he eschewed the whole idea of deriving rights from human nature (i.e., from ethics by extension).

But my initial impression is not that this arose from a conceptual need, but simply from weariness at bickering. Kinda like, "I quit before you can fire me." Notice that his interest in human nature runs deep, even to the point of highlighting the differences between men and women and including such nature in his concept of morality.

What I admire in Wolf's approach is that he had much to gain from closing his eyes to the truth he saw, yet he refused to do so. He read his history and analyzed man and society around him, then looked at the abstraction being preached as the fundament, then saw a big honking gap. He has refused to say that there is no gap. I can only imagine the extent of the bickering he has had to endure in libertarian circles because of this. I do not envy him, but I am grateful he has remained true to what he sees. His ideas give me great food for thought.

On a personal level, as one outside-the-box thinker looking at another, I recognize my kind. We may not agree on everything (little or much, it doesn't matter), but we certainly agree on the method of using our own minds irrespective of peer pressure.

One thing Wolf does not hold (from what I have read). NIOF and natural rights are not primaries in his thinking (although they are important). If you try to force his ideas through a concept or lens of awareness based on these premises, you will flounder at understanding him, as you admittedly are floundering.

Michael