bob333

"A man's right to act to his own advantage for his own life is the fundamental right. Setting a derivative right such as property rights against the right to life is a contradiction, in fact it is the stolen concept problem." Would this then justify stealing? If someone was about to die and he does not have enough money for medicine that will save him, can he steal to save his life? Secondly, the problem doesn't say that the person doesn't have resources to sustain his life within his property, maybe he has a vegetable garden. If he did, then is person A's action justified? Thirdly, I thought that rights in objectivism are negative obligations upon others only? You have the right to sustain your life without demanding anything from others? Is that correct? You cant demand that someone give you food, you cant demand that they give you shelter, why then can you demand that they give you right of way? Wouldn't you have to pay or negotiate for it? "Ayn Rand derived, defined and justified rights. When the conditions that justify rights are absent they cannot apply. Nothing is above rights, but there are things before rights." What are the things that come before rights and what are the conditions that justify rights? Is there any link you can provide to an article on this?

"A man's right to act to his own advantage for his own life is the fundamental right. Setting a derivative right such as property rights against the right to life is a contradiction, in fact it is the stolen concept problem." Would this then justify stealing? If someone was about to die and he does not have enough money for medicine that will save him, can he steal to save his life? Secondly, the problem doesn't say that the person doesn't have resources to sustain his life within his property, maybe he has a vegetable garden. If he did, then is person A's action justified? Thirdly, I thought that rights in objectivism are negative obligations upon others only? You have the right to sustain your life without demanding anything from others? Is that correct? You cant demand that someone give you food, you cant demand that they give you shelter, why then can you demand that they give you right of way? Wouldn't you have to pay or negotiate for it? "Ayn Rand derived, defined and justified rights. When the conditions that justify rights are absent they cannot apply. Nothing is above rights, but there are things before rights." What are the things that come before rights and what are the conditions that justify rights? Is there any link you can provide to an article on this?

"The correction of this situation is an easement by necessity, issued by a court order." Well, that's exactly what i'm trying to figure out. Is easement by necessity justified by objectivist principles? Ayn Rand has said that there are no exemptions to rights (including property rights) even in an emergency. Wouldn't giving an easement by necessity be giving an exemption to property rights? "You cannot say that 'man has inalienable rights except in cold weather and on every second Tuesday,' just as you cannot say that 'man has inalienable rights except in an emergency,' or 'man’s rights cannot be violated except for a good purpose.' Either man’s rights are inalienable, or they are not. You cannot say a thing such as 'semi-inalienable' and consider yourself either honest or sane. When you begin making conditions, reservations and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man’s rights, who may violate them at his discretion." -Ayn Rand

"The edict by the owner of the surrounding property would constitute an initiation of force. Not a problem for Objectivism." Asking people not to trespass on your property is an initiation of force? From what I've understood, based on what I have read so far it is the trespasser who is initiating force by violating the rights of the property owner. If person A has violated any of the rights of Person B then please state which right is violated, it would make things a lot clearer because from what I understand so far, none of the rights of person B are violated in this situation. "the Objectivist principle being violated is the Trader Principle (see above). Person A hasn't earned the right to confine Person B to his property by purchasing A's property. Presuming Person B desires to come and go from his property, Person A must deal with person B as a trader and negotiate a right of way." How is it violated by person A? He is only asking that his property rights be respected. The way I understand the Traders principle, person B would be violating it by ignoring the property rights of A, he is giving himself easement unearned! He never worked to secure easement and the court will give it to him for free? Isn't that an unearned gain? I'm sorry but the way I understand it so far is that if the court gives person B easement through the property of person A - this would be equivalent to providing welfare - the court would be providing B with an unearned gain (easement) at the expense of violating the property rights of person A in oder to improve the life of person B. Also, the way I understand it is that in the situation I gave, none of the rights of person B have been violated.

"In the scenario you describe, yes. That does not mean he can go trample on A's roses while doing so.... unless A plants roses all over and the only way to walk through is to trample them." Thanks for the answer but my purpose is to understand objectivist philosophy, so if you can explain why this is not a violation of property rights and hopefully cite writings of Ayn Rand to back it up, I'd appreciate it. In the scenario described person A doesn't seek to take anyone prisoner, he just doesn't want anyone in his property.

"Rights, including property rights, aren't the right to objects, they are the right to action. Property rights are the right to use material goods. But it's the right to use them for self sustaining action" "Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values." Just wondering if you derived your answer from this quote as the wording is similar. Because if you did, I think you misinterpreted it. All Ayn Rand is trying to say here is that no one has the obligation to give you anything, if you want property you have to earn it yourself. In fact, I think this quote would contradict your claim as easement is a type of property right and this qoute would mean that no one has the obligation to give it to you, you have to earn it yourself. If you got it from somewhere else, can I see your source? "When people use their property to violate someone else's rights (be it intentionally or not), they are acting outside their rights." What specific right is violated in this scenario?

so the government will allow person b to walk through the property of person a without his consent? That is not a violation of property rights? How? What if the goal is not to imprison person b? Maybe person A just feels uncomfortable whenever someone else is on his property? In another scenario, what if person A wants to charge money to anyone who walks through any of his properties. Person b can only afford to pay the fee once, so he can leave but he cannot return to his house again, woul the court give him right of way to enter and exit his house as he pleases?

Hi, I'm trying to understand more about objectivist philosophy, specifically the issue of the limits of property rights. what will happen in a scenario such as this: A man (person A) buys all the property surrounding another mans house (person B ). Person A later forbids person B from stepping on his property. Now, person B never bothered securing easement, so he cannot get out of his house without trespassing. In an objectivist society, will the government use force to give person B right of way through the property of person A against the will of person A?