Sumantra Roy

I just came across this article written by libertarian philosopher David Friedman which criticizes certain aspects of the underlying philosophy behind Galt's speech. I think David's criticisms might be worth discussing here. I don't yet understand the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical aspects of Rand's philosophy well enough to know whether or not David has a point here - so perhaps some of you can comment? Here's the link - http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ought_From_Is.html * * Mod Note: Merged from separate thread * *

Hi All I am a new fan of objectivism, having read many of Ayn Rand's books (both fiction and non-fiction) in the last few months. I am currently trying to improve my understanding of how Rand logically derived individual rights (like the right to property) from man's basic right to live and why any taxation is a violation of individual rights. I am going to outline my current understanding of this here. Please let me know if I am mistaken in any way: From my understanding of objectivism so far, the basic premise behind objectivism (i.e. the unquestioned primary) can be outlined in the following statement: Each human being has a fundamental, inviolable right to live, provided that in doing so, he does not violate the right of other human beings to live. A human being's right to live is not granted to him by society or by other men, it's something that he possesses simply because he exists, simply because he is a human being. Now, any philosophical system needs a standard of value, i.e. an objective basis for determining what is "good" and what is "evil". Under objectivism, the standard for good and evil is whether a particular thing supports the above fundamental, inviolable premise or detracts from the above premise. If a particular decision upholds the above basic premise, it's a good. If a decision destroys in any way the above premise, it's evil. Taking this basic premise as a given, here is how the absolute right to property is derived from this premise: 1) Human beings, in order to live, must think and use reason. Human beings, unlike animals, are not pre-programmed by nature to search for food and to survive - we must actively THINK in order to survive by using REASON. 2) If a human being must use reason to live, and if he has a fundamental, inviolable right to live, it follows that he has a fundamental, inviolable right to use reason. 3) If he has a fundamental, inviolable right to use reason, it follows that he also has a fundamental, inviolable right to the PRODUCT of his reason. Because without having a fundamental, inviolable right to the product of the reason, there is no point in having a right to use the reason itself, because the very purpose of using reason in order to live is to produce. Since property is a product of his reason, therefore, he has an inviolable right to his own property. 4) If he has a fundamental, inviolable right to the PRODUCT of his reason, and given that this right is derived from his right to live, and further given that his right to live is not granted to him by society or by other men, it follows that society or other men have no automatic right to the product of his reason. This means that imposition of any taxes is a violation of a man's right to live. Please let me know whether my understanding above is correct. Thanks, Sumantra.