Devil's Advocate

I guess I'm missing what part of "which you are forced to follow" equates to a mandate...

OK, so in the case of a private road owner, you believe that having a non-mandatory seat belt policy will increase the likelihood of surviving accidents that result from negligent road conditions... 1) If seat belts save lives, then they must be worn to do so; suggesting that they be worn doesn't cut it. 2) If I am persuaded to follow your policy and become trapped in my car in a fiery wreck because the belt won't release, or it keeps me trapped in a sinking car that fell into your lake because your bridge collapsed due to your negligence, would you then reconsider your policy?

Then we can agree that life and liberty are equal rights whether or not you're an Objectivist. I haven't proposed otherwise, so I'm not sure where this nonsense comes from... Yes, trespassers may be prosecuted, however this fails to address the legitimacy of effecting the personal behavior of those who travel across property (private or otherwise) where the path is recognized as a public right of way.

How does responding to the possibility of being sued for injury, resulting from personal reckless behavior on your property, with "a policy (which you are not forced to follow)" protect anyone? Why assume responsibility for the reckless behavior of others in the first place?

Then as a spokesperson for the OP and Objectivism, is the correct answer that property owners have a greater right to life and liberty than those without property?

Legitimacy isn't conferred by the sanction of the victim, as perhaps is being promoted by some here. There's only one measure of legitimacy for law (or policy); respect for the life and liberty of every participant.

I was speaking to the issue of law, but private policies which abridge rights to life, liberty, etc. certainly aren't any more legitimate than government laws which do the same. Yes, the liability of the Owner was the issue I was addressing.

A private owner doesn't have the right to abridge the equal rights of his guest; acts of murder or enslavement aren't legitimized on private property. There's also the issue of public right of ways to consider. Accessible driveways, sidewalks, paths, etc. which allow travel across private property don't entitle the Owner to require visitors to wear pumpkin hats or remove their clothes.

One of us may not... A law is only legitimate when it doesn't contradict an individual's right to life, liberty, etc. Illegitimate laws justify the actions of highwaymen like Ragnar Danneskjold.

Restitution is justified in cases where ones negligence causes the death of others, but not when the injury is self inflicted. That the owner of a right of way may be sued for self inflicted injuries resulting from reckless driving, and unrelated to the owner's care and maintenance of the road, points to an illegitimate application of law, rather than objective law. Responding to one bad law by enacting another bad law, legitimizes neither; two wrongs don't make it right.

And what would have happened if his car had been hit on the driver side, sending a beltless passenger into his lap, interfering with his ability to hit the brakes? The result you produce to justify the law seems pretty arbitrary to me, particularly if it has nothing to do with the safety of the person being belted.

Less obvious is "Why"? You appear to be endorsing a policy of coercion aimed at prohibiting reckless personal behavior. By what right do you assume the role of being your brother's keeper?

The right of self determination. You are implying that use of the road compels one to follow the rules of the road, however this doesn't address whether or not the rules are legitimate.

Here's a link to where Locke's idea about limiting the acquisition of property comes from: "One can only take so much as one can use. Locke applies these rules to land: a person in a state of nature can claim land by adding labor to it--building house on it or farming on it--but only so much as that person can reasonably use without waste." http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/locke/section4.rhtml I'll let you decide whether or not he makes a valid argument, but I'm persuaded that there is merit to it. Of course at the time, there was quite a bit more property available to acquire. These days everything is fairly well spoken for.

There's an interesting aspect of property rights, as proposed by Locke, that one can only claim as much property as one can use without waste; waste being an infringement on other individuals use and appropriation of common resources. In this context, property rights remain legitimate with limitations based on recognizing that all individuals require some ability to acquire property in order to validate private ownership as an individual right. Essentially, an individual right to property presumes additional property remains for other individuals to acquire.

The peculiar thing about helmet and seat belt laws, as opposed to texting and other forms of distracted driving prohibitions, is that these laws individually mandate someone who represents zero threat to anyone else. You might argue that their injury impacts others in terms of transferred medical insurance costs, but that presumes an individual who avoids their legal obligation to purchase liability insurance, will meet their legal obligation to pay fines. It seems like one bad premise built upon another to me...

A secured life, that one isn't at liberty to dispose of, creates ethical and political contradictions. Seat belt laws fundamentally undermine individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because they impose individual mandates of no consequence to other individuals. The government is entitled to secure life and liberty; not to mandate life without liberty.

Do unto others...

"While there are arguments against animal minds, the cognitive scientists studying animals largely accept that animals are minded, cognitive systems. Animal consciousness, however, it is a topic that some scientists are less willing to engage with." http://plato.stanfor...gnition-animal/ I've been a dog owner all my life, and based primarily on personal experience I'd have to say that dogs are volitional, and conscious, but perhaps selfless. I can read my dogs emotions as well as those of family members, and reaction for reaction, dogs brood, get excited, show fear, and even smile as their hosts do, and usually for the same reasons; and their memory is as good or better. In terms of planning, I'd say dogs are fully capable of the first few moves, but lack the ability, or interest in forming long range goals.

If I'm reading your initial post correctly (I reread it twice), you believe that ethics derived from reality are momentary, suggesting that what may be correct and proper one moment, may not be correct and proper a moment later. Honesty, for example, is only appropriate given the moment one is required to act honestly. Honesty isn't useful as a long term (timeless) ethic, because it doesn't allow one to lie when a particular moment calls for it, e.g. to protect life, or to be tactful. Is this a correct summary of your position?

God was in our declaration of independence, before we were free. I mean 'free' as in uncoerced; free to be a dissident, in every sense of the word.

My initial comment points to the root of the "ethical conflict" between Ayn Rand and the Founding Fathers, and others like Reagan. Phrases like, "one nation, under God" and "in God we trust" are loathsome to an Objectivist, whereas to Franklin, Reagan, et al, these phrases simply acknowledge the source of the right to life our government is tasked to protect. I believe it's fair to say that Objectivists would prefer being free from religious expressions, as opposed to interacting with those who enjoy a freedom of religious expression.

The kind of things that come to mind are "In God We Trust" and "The Ten Commandments" in courthouses, but Christmas music in shopping centers certainly applies too.

I believe the difference becomes apparent in social interactions. For example, Unitarian Universalists embrace and promote a wide range of beliefs, including atheism; at the other end of the spectrum are those who object to any public display of spiritual belief. Freedom of religion defends even the heretic, whereas freedom from religion censures him. I would argue that a freedom from religion weakens the protection of individual rights, but that might be better addressed under another topic.

I agree; that more than anything else would have been worth avoiding.