Why Rand has no theory of Rights

[Mikee]

"Positive" rights are mafia rights, the power to steal from one group to bribe another and keep the difference.

Mikee:

"mafia rights" let's see, I assume you are referring to organized crime rights...so for example Jewish crime families like the Brighten Beach crime families, or the Chinese Tong crime families, or the Irish crime families like the Westy Boys, or the Jamaican crime families or maybe the German crime families like the Dutch Schultz crime families.

Surely, you did not mean to assert that crime families are restricted to Sicilians because that would be so not accurate.

Adam

Adam,

I certainly didn't mean to slight any deserving families or raise Sicilians above the rest. Perhaps having watched the Godfather movies is why the mafia comes to my mind when thinking of "protection rackets". I am calling the more liberal members of our government a crime syndicate. They are thieves, pure and simple, they know what they're doing is theft. They enrich themselves with money and power with this game. I will only be half satisfied if Pelosi and her ilk are booted out of office. I'd really like to see them in prison where they belong. I have no hope that the despicable George Miller in the district I live in will be removed. He won his last election with 79% of the vote. I find recently on Charles Anderson's blog George Miller is one of 70 in the house of representatives who belongs to the "Democratic Socialists of America" caucus. I wonder how many of their constituents know their representatives are intent on overthrowing the constitution?

http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2010/09/congress-members-who-are-in-democratic.html

[Selene]

Mikee:

Understood.

My people are originally from Northern Italy. The lumping of Italians as "mafia" has been an edgy issue because of our emphasis on education and professionalism in the North.

And yes, the Godfather movies, the Untouchables etc. created the stereotype. I never miss the chance to correct it.

As to the real organized criminals, we agree, it is and always has been the centralized government which extorts the individual citizen with its organized protection racketeering.

Even has the audacity to pass the RICO act as if it has no awareness of itself!

Adam

[Selene]

http://www.govtrack....e=CA&district=7

Yes, unfortunately, he is pretty untouchable in that district.

Gerrymandered the hell out of this district.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Selene

[Mikee]

http://www.govtrack....e=CA&district=7

Yes, unfortunately, he is pretty untouchable in that district.

Gerrymandered the hell out of this district.

Adam,

Prop 20 is on the Nov 2 ballot to take drawing district lines out of the hands of elected officials and give it to members of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission that was created by Prop 11. There is a competing proposition on the ballot that will repeal prop 11. Typical California politics. The radio ad I heard yesterday makes Prop 20 sound like exactly the opposite of its intended purpose, also typical left wing obfuscation. They think and act like everyone is a fool, unfortunately given the number of fools and people wanting handouts they usually win.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_20,_Congressional_Redistricting_%282010%29

-Mike

ps: I wasn't even thinking Italians in my "mafia" reference, just a general crime syndicate reference. The term "Mafia" has an interesting history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Mafia

Particularly interesting (for drawing analogies) is the section on "Protection Rackets".

Mike

[Selene]

Mikee:

My reform proposal for Congressional districts in the late 60's was greeted by certain NY and Penn. Congressional folks as if I suggested killing all their first born.

I called it the anti-Gerrymandering proposal. It was premised on pure randomness. For example, you would arbitrarily start in the top left hand corner of a state and then assemble as close to a square as possible the amount of zip codes that would add up to the amount of individuals to compose a Congressional district.

Its arbitrary and geometric nature eliminated all corruption involved in setting up Congressional districts. It is no wonder that it was quickly killed...lol.

By the way, the origin of Gerrymandering is also interesting. It is named after Governor Gerry [not pronounced Jerry, but GEAR as in the gears of a stick shift].

The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette newspaper on March 26, 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under the then governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 1744–1814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander. The exact author of the term gerrymander may never be definitively established. It is widely believed by historians that Federalist newspaper editors Nathan Hale, Benjamin and John Russell were the instigators, but the historical record gives no definitive evidence who created or uttered the word for the first time.^[1] Probably, someone in the Federalist group said, rather than describe it as salamander “call it a gerrymander, after Governor Gerry.” Appearing with the term, and helping spread and sustain its popularity, was a political cartoon depicting a strange animal with claws, wings and a dragon-type head satirizing the map of the odd shaped district. This cartoon was most likely drawn by Elkanah Tisdale an early Nineteenth Century painter, designer and engraver who was living in Boston at the time.^[2] In addition, Tisdale also had the engraving skills to cut the woodblocks which printed the original cartoon.^[3] These woodblocks survive and are preserved in the Library of Congress.^[4] The word gerrymander was reprinted numerous times in Federalist newspapers in Massachusetts, New England and nation wide during the remainder of 1812.^[5] This suggests some organized activity of the Federalists to disparage Governor Gerry in particular and the growing Democratic-Republican party in general. Gerrymandering soon began to be used to describe not only the original Massachusetts example, but other cases of district shape manipulation for partisan gain in other states. According to the Oxford English Dictionary institutionalization of the word became complete with its first appearance in a dictionary (1848) and first appearance in an encyclopedia (1868).^[6] Although the letter g of the eponymous Gerry is pronounced /ɡ/ as in go, the word gerrymander is most commonly pronounced /ˈdʒɛrimændər/, with a /dʒ/ as in gentle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

In terms of the "mafia", your link confirms what I wanted to share with you. It is precisely related to the culture of Sicily and its base is protection "rackets" which also is similar if not equal to government.

Whenever I speak to folks about the concept of "comity" in our limited constitutional republic, I explain that it is roughly analogous to the territories of rival gangs, e.g., federal, state and local. Each having their "territories", "duties" and "responsibilities", or rackets.

Good post.

Thanks.

Adam

[Xray]

I have heard people argue that a sole survivor on a desert island has rights. This does not make any sense to me.

Since rights are always embedded in a social context, the notion of rights playing a role for a sole survivor on a desert island, who is isolated from any social context, does not make any sense indeed. Just as the idea of a sole survivor on a desert island needing "morality" does not make sense.

I never did like the term "negative rights." It sounds clunky and almost contradictory, almost like a double negative. I much prefer the form of restriction on what government (or anybody) can do. In other words, a restriction on what power one human being can exercise over another.

The distinction between negative and positive rights has been around for a long time, both in philosophy and in legal theory. It is a very useful distinction, and I have no problem with it.

I find "negative rights" a confusing term.

To say that e. g. John Doe's neighbors have the "negative right" (i. e. no right) to cut down the trees in his garden sounds strange.

Edited October 6, 2010 by Xray

[Xray]

[To Ba'al Chatzaf]:

It all depends on what you mean by "whole truth." We never know everything. But we can take what we do know and integrate all of it comprehensively, systematically, without contradiction. That's what Newton essentially did, even if he might have made a small error here or there. This is all that is humanly possible. This is what we must try to do.

The errors were not that small. Newton, given the limited knowledge of his time, believed that the earth was 6000 years old. (He also believed in horoscopes).

Instead of doing this, people like to laze around in their own little village. Like you do, in your skeptic village, right? And you like to hang out with people from other villages and make fun of them for doing what you do, right?

Where would humankind be today if it had been for skeptics doubting so called truths?

Edited October 6, 2010 by Xray

[Mikee]

"Just as the idea of a sole survivor on a desert island needing "morality" does not make sense."

It makes sense if you define morality as using the primacy of reason to preserve objective value. Unless you don't value your self.

[George H. Smith]

I have heard people argue that a sole survivor on a desert island has rights. This does not make any sense to me.

Since rights are always embedded in a social context, the notion of rights playing a role for a sole survivor on a desert island, who is isolated from any social context, does not make any sense indeed. Just as the idea of a sole survivor on a desert island needing "morality" does not make sense.

I never did like the term "negative rights." It sounds clunky and almost contradictory, almost like a double negative. I much prefer the form of restriction on what government (or anybody) can do. In other words, a restriction on what power one human being can exercise over another.

The distinction between negative and positive rights has been around for a long time, both in philosophy and in legal theory. It is a very useful distinction, and I have no problem with it.

I find "negative rights" a confusing term.

To say that e. g. John Doe's neighbors have the "negative right" (i. e. no right) to cut down the trees in his garden sounds strange.

Rights impose enforceable obligations on other people. The qualifiers "negative" and "positive" specify the kinds of obligations that are imposed. A negative right imposes the obligation of noninterference, nothing more.

To say that you have a right to cut down the trees in your garden means that others are obligated to abstain from forcibly interfering with your exercise of that right. They have a negative obligation, and that's why the right in question is called a negative right. As Adam Smith put it, "We may often fulfill all the rules of justice by sitting still and doing nothing."

If you contracted with and paid someone to cut down your trees, then he would have a positive obligation to fulfill his part of the contract. You would then be said to have a "positive right" in regard to that person.

Ghs

[sjw]

[To Ba'al Chatzaf]:

It all depends on what you mean by "whole truth." We never know everything. But we can take what we do know and integrate all of it comprehensively, systematically, without contradiction. That's what Newton essentially did, even if he might have made a small error here or there. This is all that is humanly possible. This is what we must try to do.

The errors were not that small. Newton, given the limited knowledge of his time, believed that the earth was 6000 years old. (He also believed in horoscopes).

Instead of doing this, people like to laze around in their own little village. Like you do, in your skeptic village, right? And you like to hang out with people from other villages and make fun of them for doing what you do, right?

Where would humankind be today if it had been for skeptics doubting so called truths?

It's one thing to be skeptical. It's another to be a context-dropper. For example, I was clearly referring to Newton's physics, not every view of his, yet you bring in some random thing he was wrong about as if it undermines what I was saying. From some perspectives the word "skeptic" can have a good connotation, it means someone who wants reasons, but you certainly are good at demonstrating the negative connotation of that word.

Shayne

[sjw]

I have heard people argue that a sole survivor on a desert island has rights. This does not make any sense to me.

Since rights are always embedded in a social context, the notion of rights playing a role for a sole survivor on a desert island, who is isolated from any social context, does not make any sense indeed. Just as the idea of a sole survivor on a desert island needing "morality" does not make sense.

You seem quite fond of states of confusion and disarray. Might I suggest drugs and alcohol as an easier way to enter into this state.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

I have heard people argue that a sole survivor on a desert island has rights. This does not make any sense to me.

Since rights are always embedded in a social context, the notion of rights playing a role for a sole survivor on a desert island, who is isolated from any social context, does not make any sense indeed. Just as the idea of a sole survivor on a desert island needing "morality" does not make sense.

You seem quite fond of states of confusion and disarray. Might I suggest drugs and alcohol as an easier way to enter into this state.

Shayne

She has a valid point. The only things that count on a desert island are the physical environment, the physical stamina of the person on the island and the wits he brings to bear on his survival and, of course, luck. Since there is no one else to wrong (by hypothesis) there are no moral considerations. Morality is the modality of relating to others in close social contact. One can never morally wrong himself. He can make mistakes (which could be fatal or injurious) but they have the same nature as arithmetical errors. Since one is the owner of his own body and time anything he willingly does to his body and any way he willingly uses his time cannot be seen as a moral error or wrong. Abuse of one's own property is rightful use.

Morality only exists in a social context and nowhere else. Arithmetical right and wrong does not equate to moral right and wrong provided one is not using false figures to defraud another person.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

She has a valid point. The only things that count on a desert island are the physical environment, the physical stamina of the person on the island and the wits he brings to bear on his survival and, of course, luck. Since there is no one else to wrong (by hypothesis) there are no moral considerations. Morality is the modality of relating to others in close social contact. One can never morally wrong himself. He can make mistakes (which could be fatal or injurious) but they have the same nature as arithmetical errors. Since one is the owner of his own body and time anything he willingly does to his body and any way he willingly uses his time cannot be seen as a moral error or wrong. Abuse of one's own property is rightful use.

Morality only exists in a social context and nowhere else. Arithmetical right and wrong does not equate to moral right and wrong provided one is not using false figures to defraud another person.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't believe for a second that you are as oblivious about the Objectivist conception of morality as you pretend to be.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't believe for a second that you are as oblivious about the Objectivist conception of morality as you pretend to be.

Shayne

Oblivious, no.

I reject the Objectivist conception of morality, root and branch. It is other-worldly and Platonic.

This one issue is where I depart from the Objectivists strongly. The other issue is their utter ignorance of science and mathematics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

Oblivious, no.

I reject the Objectivist conception of morality, root and branch. It is other-worldly and Platonic.

This one issue is where I depart from the Objectivists strongly. The other issue is their utter ignorance of science and mathematics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well I'd say it's quite the folly to an Objectivist forum to jump up and down screaming how wrong they are, without supplying any reasons. Objectivist morality is based on principled and rational self-interest. This is a very sensible idea, and applies perfectly well to a lone person on an island. It is clearly in his interest to rationally pursue options which most further his life on that island, and to avoid self-destructive and irrational behavior.

Now if you are all alone on an island, and instead of searching for water want to drink sand, more power to you. Enjoy.

Shayne

[Xray]

Since rights are always embedded in a social context, the notion of rights playing a role for a sole survivor on a desert island, who is isolated from any social context, does not make any sense indeed. Just as the idea of a sole survivor on a desert island needing "morality" does not make sense.

You seem quite fond of states of confusion and disarray.

What exactly do you find confusing?

Edited October 6, 2010 by Xray

[rodney203]

Mr. Chatzaf:

"Morality only exists in a social context and nowhere else. Arithmetical right and wrong does not equate to moral right and wrong provided one is not using false figures to defraud another person".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When threads reach the point of this one I don't follow them closely, so do not read anything into what I say here other than what I refer to specifically.

Mr. Chatzaf, I think you need to go back to the classroom and study what we mean here when we use terms like morality, ethics, politics. Just to begin with, I think good Objectivist thinkers try to avoid using the word "morality", as it is so politically charged in most people's minds. I think we should stick to the terms "ethics" and "politics".

Mr. Chatzaf, please go back and study what Objectivism means by those two terms. There is a lot that you might need to get clear in your head.

[sjw]

Rodney, I think Bob's not here for truth, he's here to incite intellectual mayhem. He succeeds to some extent, but he's not as good at it as xray.

Shayne

[rodney203]

People here who disagree with some of the most accepted, fundamental principles of Objectivism,,,,,,,,,,,what are you'all doing here? What are you trying to accomplish? Do you see me going to some liberal, or right wing, or witches and warlocks, or some other site and beating my head against the wall there? Why don't YOU'all go there? Wait, I know why you're here,,,,,,,,,,,,because Objectivism IS the best thought out system. THAT is what must be disagreed with!! THAT is what must be torn down!!

You think that some of us don't realize you're a bunch of nihlilists (how do you spell that word anyway?)

Edited October 6, 2010 by rodney203

[BaalChatzaf]

People here who disagree with some of the most accepted, fundamental principles of Objectivism,,,,,,,,,,,what are you'all doing here? What are you trying to accomplish? Do you see me going to some liberal, or right wing, or witches and warlocks, or some other site and beating my head against the wall there? Why don't YOU'all go there? Wait, I know why you're here,,,,,,,,,,,,because Objectivism IS the best thought out system. THAT is what must be disagreed with!! THAT is what must be torn down!!

Are you jesting?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Rodney, I think Bob's not here for truth, he's here to incite intellectual mayhem. He succeeds to some extent, but he's not as good at it as xray.

Shayne

You only know what I post here. You cannot know my intentions anymore than I know yours. None of us have mental telepathy and mind reading skills.

And since when is truthfulness intellectual mayhem?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Now if you are all alone on an island, and instead of searching for water want to drink sand, more power to you. Enjoy.

Shayne

Why would any thirsty sane person want to drink sand?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

You only know what I post here. You cannot know my intentions anymore than I know yours. None of us have mental telepathy and mind reading skills.

You're right. I can't discern with certainty. But at some point one has to make a judgment call based on the preponderance of evidence. The Objectivist view on ethics/morality just isn't that hard to grasp, it has roots in common-sense, and you spout off about how wrong it is without offering a sliver of credible argument.

Everyone familiar with Rand's ethical arguments will know why it ethics in her sense of the term is not only useful but indispensable on an island. The only possible logical argument against it would be that Rand made some kind of mis-conceptualization, that the actions she categorizes as "ethical" are indeed useful on an island but don't count as "moral." No one could possibly comprehend your objection without you supplying an argument for how she made this kind of error. And I don't see your argument anywhere. So I make a judgment call: You're here to cause mayhem. Provide evidence to the contrary and I may reverse my judgment.

But it's not like you're not in good company. A lot of people are here to cause mayhem.

Shayne

Edited October 6, 2010 by sjw

[sjw]

People here who disagree with some of the most accepted, fundamental principles of Objectivism,,,,,,,,,,,what are you'all doing here? What are you trying to accomplish? Do you see me going to some liberal, or right wing, or witches and warlocks, or some other site and beating my head against the wall there? Why don't YOU'all go there? Wait, I know why you're here,,,,,,,,,,,,because Objectivism IS the best thought out system. THAT is what must be disagreed with!! THAT is what must be torn down!!

You think that some of us don't realize you're a bunch of nihlilists (how do you spell that word anyway?)

I think Bob is here to rattle your cage. You might consider whether it is indeed in need of some rattling. Objectivism might have important truths but you shouldn't swallow it whole. It has some bad elements and they need to be taken out before swallowing.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Ba'al is welcome here because there is only one of him and he tries to keep his lip zipped about what we should do to our enemies. If there were two or more . . .

--Brant