Rights

[SFreeman89Vision]

I'm doing a presentation at university on theories of rights, and will be making it from an objectivist perspective. Ayn Rand wrote:

"Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave."

My question is with regards to the part in bold. It seems to me that a likely response to this assertion is "But man can have his life sustained by others. This might make some or all men 'slaves' but that is just a slur word." What would you, or Rand, say to this?

[Kimmler]

I'm doing a presentation at university on theories of rights, and will be making it from an objectivist perspective. Ayn Rand wrote:

"Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave."

My question is with regards to the part in bold. It seems to me that a likely response to this assertion is "But man can have his life sustained by others. This might make some or all men 'slaves' but that is just a slur word." What would you, or Rand, say to this?

Just tell anyone that asks this question that he/she is a 'looter' and you refuse to sanction their question.

[Selene]

I'm doing a presentation at university on theories of rights, and will be making it from an objectivist perspective. Ayn Rand wrote:

"Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave."

My question is with regards to the part in bold. It seems to me that a likely response to this assertion is "But man can have his life sustained by others. This might make some or all men 'slaves' but that is just a slur word." What would you, or Rand, say to this?

Just tell anyone that asks this question that he/she is a 'looter' and you refuse to sanction their question.

Steve:

Out of curiosity, your objections to Ayn's philosophy are precisely what?

Might you provide me with your top three (3) constructive criticisms?

Thanks.

Adam

[rodney203]

Scott asked:

"My question is with regards to the part in bold. It seems to me that a likely response to this assertion is "But man can have his life sustained by others. This might make some or all men 'slaves' but that is just a slur word." What would you, or Rand, say to this?"

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

Scott, detractors and others will disagree with any Objectivist point they please when they sense that it conflicts with the game they are playing, without regard to reason. The Objectivist quote you mention is only one among many possible. Non-rational people see no need to tie their positions to correct reasons, and that is the problem in trying to talk about Objectivist theory to lay people. Objectivism is the best thought out system I have found, and as such, it is a system. Ideas (such as the one you quote) are true in reference to other ideas in the system. Even many people who have actually read Objectivism still have not made all the necessary connections within the material. Imagine the position of lay outside people who not only have not read Objectivism, but they don't even THINK that way, don't like it, don't agree with it.

So when people try to argue with you about ideas the best advice I could give you would be to be ready to quote immediately supporting ideas within the system of thinking. But even that will have no impact on them if they're not attempting to understand. Even if I loved public speaking I would be careful when I chose to speak on the topic. Objectivism is unpopular, widely misunderstood, easily demagoged. People are very un-intellectual. Spreading Objectivist ideas is an uphill battle. If evangelizing the world was the way systems of thinking were really spread we would all be Roman Catholic by now.

So right now I can't really think of a good response to someone who want's to play with you on the meaning of what a "slave" is, because I can't separate out my knowldege of where they are probably coming from and how they would likely deal with you in a discussion. All I can really feel is a sense of futility.

All that said, practice on me: In your own words, exactly why do men need rights?

Edited October 14, 2010 by rodney203

[Kimmler]

I'm doing a presentation at university on theories of rights, and will be making it from an objectivist perspective. Ayn Rand wrote:

"Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave."

My question is with regards to the part in bold. It seems to me that a likely response to this assertion is "But man can have his life sustained by others. This might make some or all men 'slaves' but that is just a slur word." What would you, or Rand, say to this?

Just tell anyone that asks this question that he/she is a 'looter' and you refuse to sanction their question.

Steve:

Out of curiosity, your objections to Ayn's philosophy are precisely what?

Might you provide me with your top three (3) constructive criticisms?

Thanks.

Adam

That it isn't a philosophy.

[Selene]

Steven:

Fair enough.

Your your objections to Ayn's ideas as expressed in either her fiction or non-fiction are precisely what?

I'll take the top five (5) for that one.

I am asking this seriously.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

[Ojectivism] isn't a philosophy.

What is it, then?

--Brant

[Xray]

I'm doing a presentation at university on theories of rights, and will be making it from an objectivist perspective. Ayn Rand wrote:

"Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave."

Imo you are correct in assuming that you will likely get the response: "But man can have his life sustained by others”. The gamut of those whose life is sustained by others ranges from types like playgirl Paris Hilton to those who live on welfare without working although they could. As opposed to what happens in Rand's novels, in real life, the much-maligned "parasites" can actually thrive and enjoy "the ultimate value: man's life", just like the rest of the population.

"The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave." (Rand)

An opponent might turn Rand’s words against capitalism itself and argue that the uncontrolled capitalism she advocates might produce just that: exploited third- world people who don't get any fair pair price for what they produce, with the capitalist companies they work for making huge profit.

I’m no Objectivist, and also don’t know whether the presentation will be followed by a discussion but if yes, be prepared to get a lot of counter-arguments.

[Ojectivism] isn't a philosophy.

What is it, then?

--Brant

Same question from me to Kimmler: if Objectivism isn't a philosophy - what is it in your opinion?

Edited October 15, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I'm doing a presentation at university on theories of rights, and will be making it from an objectivist perspective. Ayn Rand wrote:

"Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave."

Imo you are correct in assuming that you will likely get the response: "But man can have his life sustained by others”. The gamut of those whose life is sustained by others ranges from types like playgirl Paris Hilton to those who live on welfare without working although they could. As opposed to what happens in Rand's novels, in real life, the much-maligned "parasites" can actually thrive and enjoy "the ultimate value: man's life", just like the rest of the population.

This is so sloppy and ignorant. Babies and children have their lives "sustained by others," for instance. And "man's life" is not man qua man and is purely materialistic. All of Rand's villains had "man's life." See what it got them regardless. Of course, poor James Taggart was reduced to blubber. Presumably he still had a pulse until he killed himself or starved to death. Let's go celebrate that glob of protoplasm. Doesn't sound very Randian to me.

--Brant

[Xray]

[Replying to SFreeman89Vision's # 1 post]:

Imo you are correct in assuming that you will likely get the response: "But man can have his life sustained by others”. The gamut of those whose life is sustained by others ranges from types like playgirl Paris Hilton to those who live on welfare without working although they could. As opposed to what happens in Rand's novels, in real life, the much-maligned "parasites" can actually thrive and enjoy "the ultimate value: man's life", just like the rest of the population.

This is so sloppy and ignorant. Babies and children have their lives "sustained by others," for instance. And "man's life" is not man qua man and is purely materialistic. All of Rand's villains had "man's life." See what it got them regardless. Of course, poor James Taggart was reduced to blubber. Presumably he still had a pulse until he killed himself or starved to death. Let's go celebrate that glob of protoplasm. Doesn't sound very Randian to me.

--Brant

C'mon Brant. It goes without saying that those naturally dependent on others like babies and children were not meant here. This would be like arguing that Rand got it wrong by not thinking of babies and children when she wrote "man has to sustain life by his own effort."

And "man's life" is not man qua man and is purely materialistic.

What is the opposite of materialistic? Idealistic?

All of Rand's villains had "man's life." See what it got them regardless.

It was Rand's wishful thinking which gave her fictional "villains" what she thought they deserved. Not only her "bad guys" btw. Also those who in her opinion simply were in error. Just think of the 'tunnel tragedy' in AS ...

Edited October 15, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray. Please correct your last quotation of me. The second line is not me but your response. Thx.

--Brant

[Xray]

Xray. Please correct your last quotation of me. The second line is not me but your response. Thx.

--Brant

Oops - sorry about the mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. Here are the correct quotes:

And "man's life" is not man qua man and is purely materialistic.

What is the opposite of materialistic? Idealistic?

All of Rand's villains had "man's life." See what it got them regardless.

It was Rand's wishful thinking which gave her fictional "villains" what she thought they deserved. Not only her "bad guys" btw. Also those who in her opinion simply were in error. Just think of the 'tunnel tragedy' in AS ...

Edited October 16, 2010 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

It was Rand's wishful thinking which gave her fictional "villains" what she thought they deserved. Not only her "bad guys" btw. Also those who in her opinion simply were in error. Just think of the 'tunnel tragedy' in AS ...

In the Rand-verse are there any innocent bystanders or victims?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Xray. Please correct your last quotation of me. The second line is not me but your response. Thx.

--Brant

Oops - sorry about the mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. Here are the correct quotes:

And "man's life" is not man qua man and is purely materialistic.

What is the opposite of materialistic? Idealistic?

All of Rand's villains had "man's life." See what it got them regardless.

It was Rand's wishful thinking which gave her fictional "villains" what she thought they deserved. Not only her "bad guys" btw. Also those who in her opinion simply were in error. Just think of the 'tunnel tragedy' in AS ...

Opposite has nothing to do with this. A person has serious and profound psychological needs that need to be fed just as a body needs mashed potatoes and gravy--and vegies: feed him freedom.

--Brant

[SFreeman89Vision]

Scott, detractors and others will disagree with any Objectivist point they please when they sense that it conflicts with the game they are playing, without regard to reason. The Objectivist quote you mention is only one among many possible. Non-rational people see no need to tie their positions to correct reasons, and that is the problem in trying to talk about Objectivist theory to lay people. Objectivism is the best thought out system I have found, and as such, it is a system. Ideas (such as the one you quote) are true in reference to other ideas in the system. Even many people who have actually read Objectivism still have not made all the necessary connections within the material. Imagine the position of lay outside people who not only have not read Objectivism, but they don't even THINK that way, don't like it, don't agree with it.

So when people try to argue with you about ideas the best advice I could give you would be to be ready to quote immediately supporting ideas within the system of thinking. But even that will have no impact on them if they're not attempting to understand. Even if I loved public speaking I would be careful when I chose to speak on the topic. Objectivism is unpopular, widely misunderstood, easily demagoged. People are very un-intellectual. Spreading Objectivist ideas is an uphill battle. If evangelizing the world was the way systems of thinking were really spread we would all be Roman Catholic by now.

So right now I can't really think of a good response to someone who want's to play with you on the meaning of what a "slave" is, because I can't separate out my knowldege of where they are probably coming from and how they would likely deal with you in a discussion. All I can really feel is a sense of futility.

All that said, practice on me: In your own words, exactly why do men need rights?

Thank you for your reply. The presentation topic is 'theories of rights' for a course titled 'political theory in practice'.

My train of reasoning, though it is not complete, hence my posting here, goes something like this:

***

Consistency is better than inconsistency; to say that inconsistency is better would require us to consistently apply the standard of inconsistency which is impossible. Therefore we can judge arguments on their consistency.

Given this standard, the human senses must be valid for purposes of reasoning about the world. Any argument they are not would itself rely upon the senses and thus be inconsistent.

There must be truth, since any argument that there is not is itself a statement of truth and therefore inconsistent.

Given that there is truth and that the senses are valid, we must be able to find truth through the senses i.e. through observation.

We can observe that people act both to gain and to keep things. Since man is mortal, which we can also observe, we know that man must make choices. He cannot do and have everything in his lifetime, he must choose which things to pursue and in what way.

This implies some standard of value. Man does not pursue good food or large houses or companionship as ends in themselves, he pursues them for some higher end. This standard, this end in itself, is man's own life.

But we also know that, while men value each other, they are a potential threat to one another. Men can deprive other men of their lives. By his nature man seeks his own life, the purpose of man's life is to live his own life. So it must be morally bad for one man to deprive another of his life. If we wish to inform our (political) actions from morality then some principle must be established that connects the two. We call such a principle a right, and so the right to life.

Corollary to this is the right to property since man's life consists of applying reason to the world i.e. producing. If man has a right to his life, he must also have a right to that which he produces.

From this it follows that capitalism is the proper organisation of society since it is the only system that protects man's rights.

***

As I say I don't feel it's complete and I was hoping for some help in refining it and preparing counter-arguments to some of the criticisms that will inevitably be made.

I am certain that some members of the class will be aghast at it, but others I think will be sympathetic. Class yesterday was on equality, and while one classmate insisted that 'opulence' was immoral, at least while people are starving, another countered (quite rightly in my opinion) that since wealth is produced 'opulence' is created by those who enjoy it (at least under capitalism) and to become wealthy is not at the expense of the poor, and that if the opulent were deprived of their wealth in order to aid the poor they would simply cease to produce. There seemed to be a consensus, at least amongst those who spoke, that egalitarianism is at least impractical or impossible, and probably undesirable. Nobody mentioned rights i.e. what about the opulent man's RIGHT to that which he produces but most people did not seem to be keen on robbing him. I don't think that's too bad for what is essentially a socialist, collectivist, often openly Marxist system of higher education...

Edited October 20, 2010 by SFreeman89Vision

[Selene]

Scott:

Can you help me out with some audience analysis?

Where are you located and what is the age group of the class you are presenting this to?

Adam

[SFreeman89Vision]

I'm in the UK. The class will be 20, 21 and 22.

Edited October 20, 2010 by SFreeman89Vision

[Selene]

I'm in the UK. The class will be 20, 21 and 22.

Would these young Brits agree that they each own their own physical bodies?

If so, would they then agree that they have an absolute right to the use of their own bodies as they wish to use them and that the state has no authority to impose its will on them to pursue their own pleasure?

[SFreeman89Vision]

I think they would probably initially agree that they own their own physical bodies if I asked them. But if I asked them if they think they have an absolute right to the use of their own bodies as they wish, I think there might be some disagreement. I think some would object to drug taking and prostitution, for example, on the basis that while it might be your choice it creates social ills; externalities. They might also agree in principle but say that in practice 'choice' is limited such as women becoming prostitutes because they have no other option or people working for low pay/in bad conditions because they have no choice. I can imagine a variety of other things they'd probably object to such as, certainly viewing child pornography, but also perhaps some other kinds of pornography (violent, animals etc), incest, polygamy, making 'hateful' speech (race, religion etc).

And that's before extending a right to your body to a right to other forms of property....

[Selene]

I think they would probably initially agree that they own their own physical bodies if I asked them. But if I asked them if they think they have an absolute right to the use of their own bodies as they wish, I think there might be some disagreement. I think some would object to drug taking and prostitution, for example, on the basis that while it might be your choice it creates social ills; externalities. They might also agree in principle but say that in practice 'choice' is limited such as women becoming prostitutes because they have no other option or people working for low pay/in bad conditions because they have no choice. I can imagine a variety of other things they'd probably object to such as, certainly viewing child pornography, but also perhaps some other kinds of pornography (violent, animals etc), incest, polygamy, making 'hateful' speech (race, religion etc).

And that's before extending a right to your body to a right to other forms of property....

Scott:

Precisely, so this will flush out the issue of what constitutes a right. Forces a hard definition of what a right is. Then at least you know what you are up against and you then can state your definition clearly and make your defense.

What do you think of the announcement about Great Britain tracking all computer usage?

Adam

[equality72521]

I think they would probably initially agree that they own their own physical bodies if I asked them. But if I asked them if they think they have an absolute right to the use of their own bodies as they wish, I think there might be some disagreement. I think some would object to drug taking and prostitution, for example, on the basis that while it might be your choice it creates social ills; externalities. They might also agree in principle but say that in practice 'choice' is limited such as women becoming prostitutes because they have no other option or people working for low pay/in bad conditions because they have no choice. I can imagine a variety of other things they'd probably object to such as, certainly viewing child pornography, but also perhaps some other kinds of pornography (violent, animals etc), incest, polygamy, making 'hateful' speech (race, religion etc).

And that's before extending a right to your body to a right to other forms of property....

Adam is right about definition. The most important thing you can do in any presentation or debate is define your terms. Victory is 70% definition of terms. I know the objections you are going to receive simply because I have heard them all before, what you need to do is to point out the contradictions of the opposition. For example Child pornography, Childrens minds are not fully developed, they are easily manipulated and do not posses enough information to make life impacting decision. Child pornography is an assault on the Right of the child to his own person, it is the equivalent of deceiving someone into signing over all their property, no court would uphold such a contract because it is a violation of contracts. If someone brings up hate speech you need to question the premise of hate speech, who defines it, what is it? Does it encompass all "offensive" words if so some people find the word shit, or damn offensive should these words be outlawed as hate speech? should calling someone fat be considered hate speech because it might hurt their feelings? or should speech which incites violence be outlawed? People have the right to hold whatever belief they want, however if we are consistent in our position we must follow that it is a crime for someone to violate another property or to encourage the violation of someone else property is a crime. If someone says "dirty jew, or dirty Muslim, or stupid Christian, this is not a crime. however if someone says "kill the jew, Muslims, or Christians." than that is a crime. If someone says "I don't like homosexuals, or being gay is wrong" this is not a crime, it is a crime to say "Kill the homosexuals" or "homosexuals should not be allowed to own property".

The point is you need to make a connection between "non-initiation of force" and Rights. Encourage your audience to think seriously on the principle of non-initiation, if no man has the right to force another to do something than this explicitly means that no man may make another a slave, further it means that no man may violate the property of another person, and it also means that people are free to do anything except use force against someone else or their property. ask your audience to consider this very seriously and ask themselves what the world would look like if the world upheld this principle.

[equality72521]

Also add that it would be quite possible to punish these people without government intervention. The way in which they could be punished would be boycott's. People could refuse to do business with people who do things which the customers find objectionable.

[Selene]

Alan:

Excellent points on boycotts and the non-initiation of force.

The point is you need to make a connection between "non-initiation of force" and Rights. Encourage your audience to think seriously on the principle of non-initiation, if no man has the right to force another to do something than this explicitly means that no man may make another a slave, further it means that no man may violate the property of another person, and it also means that people are free to do anything except use force against someone else or their property. ask your audience to consider this very seriously and ask themselves what the world would look like if the world upheld this principle.

This concept is so deeply embedded in my philosophy that I sometimes assume it is accepted by every rational human, but I need to remember to always include it when I am proselytizing Ayn's ideas as it is a critical linchpin for connecting all the dots to both the economic and political beauty of her system.

Thanks for the reminder.

Adam

[Xray]

I'm in the UK. The class will be 20, 21 and 22.

Am I correct in concluding that you are a student as well, doing this presentation to members of your age group?

Non-rational people see no need to tie their positions to correct reasons

But there is no such thing as a "correct" reason, and it would be irrational to claim that there is.

There are only incorrect conclusions as to what the reason for a position is.

Example: I never eat Kiwis. From which one could conclude: the reason is that I simply don't like them. But this conclusion is incorrect because I do like them. The reason why I never eat Kiwis: I'm allergic to them.

Objectivism is the best thought out system I have found, and as such, it is a system.

What precisely do you conceive as so well thought out in Objectivism? Can you illustrate with a concrete example?

So when people try to argue with you about ideas the best advice I could give you would be to be ready to quote immediately supporting ideas within the system of thinking.

Quoting supporting ideas within the system of thinking won't cut it in a debate with opponents, the reason being that opponents will attack the premises, the very foundation of the system you advocate.

Just like a critic of the Bible's premises will (correctly) reject as circular reasoning a Jehova's witness's supporting ideas using the Bible as authority, and just like the critic of Marxism's premises will (correctly) reject as circular reasoning a Marxist's supporting evidence using "Capital" as authority, - a critic of Objectivim's premises will (correctly) reject as circular reasoning an Objectivist's supporting ideas using ITOE and TVOS as authority.

So in order to make your case, avoid resorting to circular reasoning at all costs. If you don't and your opponent is savvy enough to see it and point it out, you can take your ball and go home.

Don't let this discourage you though. Instead, try to find out were your opponent stands and ask him/her questions. Ask them to explain their position. This will allow you to check their premises.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Xray

[Selene]

Scott:

Ms. Xray will try this approach with you. Please look back on the number of folks who have disengaged with her for a number of reasons.

Just trying to save you some effort.

The parable of the Sirens is enough of a warning. Sail on, son.

Adam