AisA

Hunterrose, is it your position that a child leaps into existence on its own, i.e. that its creation is causeless, random and unrelated to any act on the part of the parents?

But let's be clear. This is not your conclusion. You have no choice in the matter. The notion that you have thought about the issue, carefully and logically considered the evidence, and then adopted this position is an illusion. You did not make up your mind on this issue. The conclusion was forced upon you by deterministic forces outside your perception and control. Thus, you have no idea what you actually believe, because you are not free to believe anything.

What is the argument that anyone does have to do anything, such as respect the freedom of others?

If your free will is but an illusion, then you are not in control of your mind. Therefore, you cannot know that the content of your mind is a product of a process of thought governed by logic; you may think you are being reasonable and logical, but that, too, could be a mere illusion created by deterministic forces. Thus, you cannot know anything about the validity of your beliefs; they may be true or laughably false. Why, then, should we listen to anything you have to say? You cannot escape the fact that any claim to knowledge -- including the claim that determinism is true -- presupposes that one has the ability to choose the logical over the illogical, to choose to think instead of evade, to choose to speak the truth and not to lie. Absent the power of choice, you have no way to validate or verify your beliefs -- and thus no business making any claim to knowledge.

So, it is your position that what Miss Rand actually meant to say, in the comments above and in the article in The Objectivist Newsletter, is that child abandonment is fine as long as you don't interfere with someone else that is attempting to feed the child? When Miss Rand says, "Once a child is born, he is entitled to support until he is self-supporting," she actually means "Once a child is born, he is entitled only to whatever support is volunteered by others until he is self-supporting"? And the article in the Objectivist Newsletter that said, "The support (provided by his parents) is his by right" really means, "The support is his by right but only if others volunteer it"? If the child does not have a right to have food offered to it, then why would preventing others from feeding it be a violation of its rights? You can argue that it would be a violation of the rights of the person offering the food, but if the child doesn't have a right to the food, it cannot be a violation of his rights.

My position that a child has a right to material support from his parents has been universally attacked on the grounds that it allegedly contradicts Miss Rand’s statements that: 1) everyone has the same rights, and 2) rights are rights to objects not to actions. I have never considered my position to be in conflict with this, because I view children as a special case, and I am convinced Miss Rand did as well. In “Ayn Rand Answers”, Miss Rand addressed three questions that relate directly to children and parents and a fourth question that is potentially related. Here are the questions and her responses. While some of these answers are open to interpretation, I think three facts are undeniable regarding Miss Rand’s position: 1) Children have an individual right to material support (food and care) from the parents. 2) Government may intervene when the parent fails to provide food and proper care. 3) A child’s rights are not the same as an adult’s. These facts support the view that the relationship between parent and child is a special case involving different rights for the two parties. You may disagree with that view, but there is no doubt in my mind that such was Miss Rand’s view. My position has not changed: The purpose of the concept of rights is to define the conditions of existence, vis-à-vis other men, required for man’s proper survival. Rights are normally rights to actions, not to objects, because for man the adult, the freedom to act is all his “proper survival” requires from other men. However, a child is a special case: a child is a rational being that cannot, without a period of learning and development, survive in the normal manner of a rational being, i.e. by using reason to produce what his survival requires. His nature, as an infant rational being, demands an additional "condition of existence vis-à-vis other men"-- it demands at least minimal material support from those who are causally responsible for his existence: his creators. What is man’s “proper survival” as an infant? There is only one possibility: the child must accept material support from an adult. Why must that material support come from the parents and only the parents? Because the parents, and only the parents, are causally responsible for the child’s existence. As I have written many times, I see no justification for declaring that the “condition of existence” required by man’s nature, as an adult, constitutes a right – but the “condition of existence” demanded by man’s nature as an infant is irrelevant.

It is indeed contextual. The context is the nature, and needs, of a rational being of volitional consciousness. You are dropping context here and I am rapidly losing interest in expending the effort to remind you of the context. The example of the emergency situation was not brought up as an example of a situation in which rights can be rights to objects. It was brought up as an example of the principle that context matters in implementing Objectivist principles. Are you incapable of grasping the distinction between those two things? You asked for my view of the principle that rights are only rights to actions and not to objects. I answered that since that principle is a derivative, it cannot be applied acontextually, i.e. it cannot be applied while ignoring the context in which it was derived; and that context was the normal interaction of adults coexisting in a given area. The relationship between parent and child is fundamentally different; hence different rights apply. So, I did identify a context in which rights are rights to objects, not just to actions: namely, the relationship between parent and child. You then went off the deep end with responses like this: This was, essentially, a denial that context can ever matter. It is the assertion that whatever Miss Rand says is true, is always true no matter what the situation. So I responded by giving you another example of how context affects the application of Objectivist principles. I gave you Miss Rand's own words in which she basically says that the entire Objectivist ethics goes out the window in certain situations, because its derivation rests on a certain context. But rather than admit that this example proves the principle, you try to make it appear that I am making the foolish claims that childhood is an emergency and that an emergency is the context in which rights are something other than rights to actions. But this will not work, because I do not forget my own argument from one post to the next. Children are a special case with special rights and limitations. This remains true, no matter how you try to twist it. Even if we grant your (erroneous) interpretation of the article in the The Objectivist Newsletter, that is, even if we grant that what that article says is that children only have a right to the act of support from the parents, that is clearly an example of a right not possessed by any adult. You are obviously treating the child's rights differently. If all rational beings possess the same rights, then a child cannot be said to have a right to have his parent's act on his behalf. If he does not have this right, then there is no violation of his rights when parents fail to take such action. I see no way around this fundamental contradiction in your position. You cannot simultaneously declare that parent and child have identical rights but government can force one to act on behalf of the other. That simply does not make sense. As far as you pointing out contradictions in my position, other than repeatedly quoting Ayn Rand while ignoring the context of her statements, I can only recall one thing: your claim that the inherent helpless of an infant rational being cannot be a source of rights because such a state is not exclusive to human beings. I then pointed out that if some animal were discovered to be capable of reason, reason would then no longer be exclusive to man, yet this would not mean the man's rights would disappear. So "exclusivity to man" cannot be a requirement for deriving rights. You never responded to this except to claim, many posts later, that it was so irrational that pointing it out would be "unkind". That, howeve, is merely an unsupported assertion. The burden is on you to prove that ""exclusivity to man" is a defining factor in determining which of man's characteristics are a proper basis for deriving rights. Until you do, my argument stands and there is no contradiction.

Marc, you are being ridiculous. I merely gave you an example to illustrate the importance of context in applying the principles of Objectivism. Surely you know that this does not mean that I consider childhood to be an emergency. Is it your position that knowledge is not contextual? Your argument contains a fundamental contradiction you have not been able to resolve. If all rational beings possess identical rights and all rights are strictly rights to actions and nothing else, then a child cannot invoke any right to the "agreement to provide support" you claim is present from birth. And if a child doesn't have a right to that agreement, then there is no basis for making it a legal requirement. You can certainly make a good case that agreeing to provide support is the moral thing for the parent to do. But unless the child has a right to that agreement, then there is no rights violation when the parent says, "No, I don't agree that giving birth means I have agreed to provide support". If all rights are identical, child abandonment is fine, because no child can claim a right that is not also possessed by everyone else.

From "An Introduction to Logic" by H.W.B. Joseph, page 566: A fallacy is an argument which appears to be conclusive when it is not." From "Logic, an Introduction" by Lionel Ruby, page 416: "A fallacy is an error in reasoning in an argument which claims to be valid." What is your definition and why is it valid and those above invalid? If this is true, why would you argue against the fallacy of the stolen concept on the grounds that we do not know the speaker's definitions? So a form of argument that is inherently fallacious, i.e. an argument that produces nothing but fallacies, is not a fallacy, because it does not pass the special, additional jrs test of being "the same as the justification of a step which could be either valid or fallacious." And this additional jrs requirement is justified by what, exactly?

Are you familiar with the Objectivist principle that knowledge is contextual? Let me give you another example. Are you aware that there is a context, a situation, in which the Objectivist ethics do not apply? From "Ayn Rand Answers", page 114: "But formally, as a moral philosopher, I'd say that in such emergency situations (she is referring to life under a dictatorship) no one could prescribe what action is appropriate. That's my answer to all lifeboat questions. Moral rules cannot be prescribed for these situations, because only life is the basis on which to establish a moral code. Whatever a man chooses in such cases is right, subjectively." Thus, the Objectivist morality applies in a certain context: when men are able to choose freely. Again quoting Miss Rand: "Morality ends where a gun begins." So, Marc, do you think this means we should take everything Miss Rand said about morality "with a grain of salt"? Actually, I think you are applying different rules to the child's situation. Consider: If different rules cannot apply in different contexts, then on what basis does a child have a right to (to use your terms) the act of guardianship on the part of his parents? The right to action means the right to one's own action, not a claim that others must act for you. No adult has such a right. Why, if all rights are identical in all contexts, does a child have such a right? If we apply all of Miss Rand's statements about rights literally to the child, then the child has only the right to action, his own action and nothing more. After all, that is all Miss Rand has said about rights. Just FYI, statements like these do not persuade or influence me.

Good point. A non sequitur does not prove the conclusion false; it merely identifies the fact that it does not follow from the premises provided. Here is the classic example: If I am in Miami, I am in the United States. But I am not in Miami. Therefore, I am not in the United States. In this example it may well be true that you are not in the United States, but one cannot conclude that from the facts provided; the conclusion has not been proven false, it simply doesn't follow from the information provided.

Amazing. You have been shown numerous examples of a particular form of argument: the attempt to invalidate or render meaningless one concept (reality, for example) by using another concept (illusion, for example), where the validity of the second concept depends crucially on the first concept. It is, in fact, a common form of argument. You have been shown how this form of argument produces false, meaningless statements. You have agreed that the statements produced by this form of argument are false and meaningless. But you claim that we have not shown that this form of argument "introduces a falsehood or meaninglessness". That is like agreeing that 1 + 1 = 2, but claiming we have not shown that 1 + 1 = 2 Look, jrs, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but at this point you are simply refusing to acknowledge the obvious.

An arbitrary assertion is not one that is merely offered without justification; it is one that has no relationship to reality, i.e. it cannot be established as true or false. The statement offered by RationalCop can be shown to be false, therefore it is not arbitrary. RationalCop's statement is self-contradictory, but let me offer a better example of a stolen concept. Suppose you say, "All reality, including my existence, is but an illusion." The concept "illusion" gains meaning only in contrast to that which is real. If nothing is real, there is no way to arrive at or form the concept “illusion”. Thus, the concept "illusion" is stolen in an attempt to deny the very thing on which it depends: reality. That is the fallacy of the stolen concept.

Let me rephrase your questions and see if it suggests any answers. Why must anyone accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions? If you crash your car into someone else's car, destroying it and injuring the driver in the process, why must you accept responsibility for this and compensate the other party? Why can't you just walk away and let him deal with it? And why is there any difference between a dependent who is dependent by his very nature and has no choice in the matter, versus one who is not dependent by nature and does have a choice in the matter? On what basis does anyone choose to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions?

No, I don't. Any set of requirements that includes the notion that a non-Objectivist must approve of a fallacy before we are entitled to describe it as such is, at a minimum, arbitrary and preposterous. Upholding the validity of a concept -- which one implicitly does when one uses the concept in a statement -- while simultaneously denying that which makes the concept valid -- is obviously a contradiction. It is a form of argument that superficially appears to be valid, but which examination shows to be invalid -- and that makes it a fallacy. You have agreed that this form of argument is a contradiction; yet you deny that it is a fallacy, on the grounds (as I understand it) that it might not be the "root cause" of the contradiction, and that if we stop there, the results will be disastrous for our minds. The example you give speculates that Proudhon has a different definition of theft, one that does not depend on the concept of property. I have not read Proudhon, but it is clear that whatever definition he is using for "theft", he intends it to be a pejorative term, and intends to use it to discredit the concept of property. Your objection to the stolen concept fallacy on the grounds that the speaker may be using different definitions is like saying that an ad hominem such as, "Candidate X is immoral, therefore his arguments are false", is not a fallacy because, after all, the speaker may have a different definition of "immoral" than we do. Or, it is like saying that a non-sequitur such as, "This dog is yours; this dog is a father; therefore this dog is your father" is not a fallacy, because, after all, the speaker may have a different definition of "father" than we do. Surely, with this approach we could blast virtually all fallacies on the grounds that we do not really know what the speaker intends his words to mean. But what is the sense in doing that? The stolen concept is a fallacy. Once it is identified, the statement that contains it may be rejected. Whether or not one wishes to engage in additional analysis or discussion with the speaker depends on the context and on one's purpose. If I hear the Pope declare that "Reason must be accepted on faith", I dismiss the statement and do no further analysis; I don't have to ask the Pope to define what he means by faith to verify that he is guilty of concept stealing. If an intelligent friend makes the same statement, I will probably do more, such as point out the concept stealing and/or ask him to define his terms. Knowledge of the stolen concept fallacy does not deter me from additional thinking or analysis; in fact, by clearing up the conceptual confusion induced by this fallacy, time and mental energy is freed to do more analysis than might otherwise be possible.

My opinion is that the situation with your father is not analogous to the Bush=Hitler phenomena. It is useful to remember that what one gets from the left is more often their emotions, not their thoughts. In most cases (at least in my experience), "Bush is as bad as Hitler" is not the result of a thought process. It is, rather, a rationalization for an intense hatred of anyone that dares to pronounce moral judgment. What generates this hatred? Remember, many on the left are victims of the educational comprachico's campaign to cripple their conceptual ability. As Miss Rand explains in her article, “The Comprachicos”, many of them are, quite literally, unable to function on a conceptual level. Their arrested mental development induces a fundamental fear, because they realize, at least intuitively, that they have no way to deal with reality. Complementing this fear is an overwhelming hostility against anyone who does not seem to be as mentally impaired as they are, and especially toward anyone who presumes to pronounce judgment. (Of course, the degree of mental impairment varies tremendously from victim to victim; I am speaking of the extreme cases, the ones I believe are today’s hard-core leftists.) How do they deal with this fear and hostility? Many resort to the rationalizations provided by their professors. In her article, "Philosophical Detection", Miss Rand observes that evil philosophies are systems of rationalizations, and many popular catch-phrases are rationalizations for underlying emotions that one does not wish to face or acknowledge. Well, the comprachicos of the American educational system have turned out two generations of students who are unable to think and are brimming with ugly emotions that require cover. I believe this explains the bizarre phenomena, very common today, of the leftists who assert the most extreme, even outrageous notions with absolute certainty ( "Bush is Hitler" is but one example), but, when questioned, cannot summon any reasons to support or explain their position. They only know how to emote; they never developed the ability to think. When I question their positions, what I usually hear in response is a stream of insults, cheap smears and various forms of ad hominem. That is when I know I am not dealing with a mind, but rather its crippled remains. Whatever errors may exist in your father's thinking, I don't think it compares to these people.

My position is simple: the principle that rights are rights to actions, and not rights to objects, is not an axiom. Since it is not an axiom, it cannot be invoked acontextually, i.e. it cannot be invoked regardless of context or situation. Since it is not an axiom, it is a derivitive. Specifically, it is derived by reference to man's adult nature as a rational being -- and what that nature implies about the conditions that must exist between men for man's proper survival. The derivation supplies the context to which the principle applies: relationships, under normal conditions, between rational, adult human beings. (How do we know the derivation is based on man's adult nature? Because it is only as an adult that man is capable of taking those actions he has a right to take.) The principle of rights, including the notion that rights are rights to actions, and not to objects, cannot necessarily be invoked outside this context. This is why it is improper to refer to "animal rights"; animals are not part of the context in which rights are derived; they are not the entities whose nature formed the basis for deriving rights. If one considers situations other than "relationships, under normal conditions, between rational, adult human beings", then one cannot automatically assume that the same rights apply. For instance, consider the following situation: Suppose, through your negligence, you injure another human being, such that they can no longer support their own existence; as a result of their injury, they can no longer take the actions necessary to support their life. In this situation, the injured party has the right to some amount of material compensation at your expense. He has a right to some portion of your assets or money. Clearly, in this situation, his rights are not limited to "rights to actions, but not to objects". Now, I will go out on a limb here and predict that you will assert that the injured party only has a right to expect the other party to take "action on his behalf". But this is clearly false; if the party that causes the injury is killed in the accident, and can no longer take any sort of action, the injured party's rights do not die with him. The injured party would still have a right to a portion of whatever assets or money the other party left behind. The relationship between child and parent is a significantly different situation than the one used to derive the principle that rights are rights to actions and not to objects. That is why you cannot automatically invoke that principle in this situation. Since I don't expect you to agree even to this much, I don't see any point in going further. You wanted to know my position on the principle that "rights are rights to actions, but not to objects". My position is that the principle applies to a certain context, but not necessarily to every context.

Why is the demand that you provide reasons for your assertions “insulting”? Yes, I have read all of your posts in the two threads and what I see is a great deal of twisting and squirming to maintain your position. For instance, in post 29, you argue against the fallacy on the absurd notion that it would not work with an “anarcho-socialist” because he might have a different hierarchy of concepts -- which ignores the fact that, just as the test of the validity of an argument is not who will or will not accept it, so the test of whether or not a given argument is a fallacy is not determined by who will or will not recognize it as such. Those notions are a repudiation of the very concept of objectivity. Also in post 29, you make the ridiculous claim that the fallacy of the stolen concept demands that one stop thinking at that point, abandon all further analysis and repudiate the principle of non-contradiction -- all of which is your invention and is, by the way, a classic example of the straw man fallacy. You resurrect this straw man over and over again in post 51 and post 55. In post 58, you declare yourself to be a mind reader with this statement: “In EVERY case (of which I know) where Objectivists identify something as a FSC, they then simply dismiss it without further thought. That is a serious error.” In post 33, in response to an example given by Jennifer, you muddy the water by noting that some tables are welded down and therefore do not qualify as furniture -- when you knew full well that this was completely irrelevant to Jennifer’s example. In post 35 you introduce another smoke screen by bringing in the possibility of changing the definition of a concept and thereby rendering it meaningless, which you call “an instance of "using an undefined term (unformed concept)". This, you claim, is a real fallacy. You then attempt to cast doubt on the fallacy of the stolen concept on the preposterous basis that it is different from this other fallacy -- but that proves absolutely nothing. In post 122, you make the outrageous accusation: “Taking FSC away would force (Objectivists) to face the fact that some of their ideas are false. Now, they are able to evade that by shooting down any argument against them as a ‘stolen concept‘”. Now, this is an example of an insult. You surely know that Objectivists have many arguments to offer other than the stolen concept. I could list other examples from your posts, but the pattern is clear. This notion is too silly to take seriously. Furthermore, you are too intelligent to honestly believe that we helpless Objectivists are destroying our minds through the use of a false fallacy that deterministically forces us to abandon thought, discard logic, repudiate the law of non-contradiction and descend inevitably into mental disease -- a process that you must rescue us from by rooting out the insidious cancer of the fallacy of the stolen concept. Such a notion does not belong in the realm of rational discussion.

So you agree that it is a contradiction, but deny that it is a fallacy. Why would that be the case? Because you say so? And why, exactly, do you wish to split that particular hair? Is it because you are bound and determined to find something in Objectivism that you believe you can prove to be false? I see the game you are playing now. This is a wholly arbitrary and preposterous set of “requirements”. 1) It establishes you – as a “non-objectivist” – as the sole judge of what is or is not a fallacy. As long as you claim that you never considered a particular type of argument to be “a valid step”, you can rule it out as a fallacy. It means Objectivists cannot identify something as a fallacy without your agreement. Why not just establish, as a rule of the debate, that you must be declared the winner, no matter what? Such a rule would be no more arbitrary than this nonsense. 2) It restricts fallacies to multi-step arguments, when, in fact, some of the best examples of the stolen concept are found in simple assertions. Again, why not just demand that the rules of the debate stipulate you as the winner? The burden of proof argument cannot be stretched to include the notion that you alone will decide the criteria for establishing a fallacy. Any discussion under such terms is a waste of time. The value of identifying the stolen concept fallacy is, at least in part, that it allows one to refute such assertions as, “Property is theft”. While one could also respond to such an assertion by demanding proof or declaring it arbitrary, it is extremely useful to show the contradiction that is inherent in such a statement. I cannot imagine what you hope to gain by agreeing that a particular statement is inherently contradictory but does not constitute a fallacy.

So, using a concept -- which means: counting on the validity and meaning of the concept -- while denying its heirarchical roots -- which means: while denying the very thing that makes the concept valid and gives it meaning -- is not a contradiction? We may invoke the validity of a concept while simultaneously denying the things that make the concept valid -- and not be guilty of a contradiction? Is that your position?

How has union membership "allowed" him to keep working at a "competitive rate" during hard times? The only people I've ever seen benefit from union membership during "hard times" are older employees who avoid a layoff because of union-enforced rules that require all cutbacks to be done in order of seniority, with the least senior people going first. In these cases, union membership also "allows" a younger employee to lose his job during "hard times".

Captain Nate, the repeal of a single federal labor law would go a long ways toward resolving this situation. Under Federal labor laws, a private business has a right to hire replacement workers during a strike, assuming it can find people willing to cross a picket line. However, the business may not fire the strikers -- and when the union ends the strike, the business must return the strikers to their jobs and fire the replacement workers. Fair, right? (Unions have been working for decades to outlaw even this limited right to hire temporary replacement workers; fortunately, they have not succeeded.) The law that forces businesses to return strikers to their jobs is the root of “union power”, i.e. it is the primary form in which the union uses government to initiate force against the employer. That law should be repealed. This would allow businesses to fire the strikers and hire permanent replacement workers, which would greatly reduce the incentive to strike. In a classic example of one bad law becoming an excuse for more bad laws, states, since they cannot fire strikers, have simply passed additional laws outlawing strikers; they simply make it illegal for public employees to go on strike. New York State has such a law, called the Taylor law, which includes stiff penalties for public employees that strike. So, now we have the obscene spectacle of the state telling public employees that they must return to their jobs by law -- they don‘t have the right not to work.

If the "root cause" of a contradiction is the denial or ignorance of a concept's hierarchical roots, what else is there to do but point this out by identifying it as a stolen concept? And what possible "corrective action" is there other than requiring the other party to respect and acknowledge those hierarchical roots?

I wonder how a determinist feels about the fact that those who love, admire or respect him don't have any choice in the matter.

That makes sense to me. As I am sure you do, I generally oppose the notion of government licensing, but in this case we are essentially talking about assigning the responsibility for exercising another person's rights (the child's) to someone else (the guardian or adopting parents), so I think it is justified No, I don't think we are better off with the FDA. Regulation of drug production, for the alleged purpose of protecting the public, is wrong and fallacious on (at least) four counts. First, it constitutes the initiation of force by declaring that drug production and trade between consenting adults requires the permission of the government. Second, it assumes that the government knows more about drug manufactuing than the actual manufacturer, which is especially preposterous considering the vast array of technologies involved in drug manufacturing, technologies spanning so many different fields that no bureaucrat could possibly be an expert in all of them. Third, it assumes that private individuals are passive, unthinking beings incapable of making decisions about product safety and risks, but once hired by the government, they become experts. And fourth, it assumes that businesses can make a profit by making and selling defective products, an assumption possible only to those without the faintest grasp of how the free market works. But I don’t see that this is analogous to the situation of an orphaned child. The relationship between a child and a (potential) guardian or charity is not one that involves two consenting parties. The child has no capacity to consent, nor does he have the capacity to judge which charity or guardian would be best for him. There are no market forces to reward those who exercise guardianship properly and punish those who do not. And unlike an adult that purchases a product that is defective, the child does not have easy access to the courts to redress any grievances he might have with an abusive guardian. So, I don't see this situation as analgous to the FDA and drug production. As to who “watches the watchers”, the same may be asked of any police action: who polices the police? The citizens must do this through their elected representatives. I agree that an orphaned child should be turned over to a private charity and put up for adoption as soon as possible (provided the charity is prepared to take proper care of the child and not engage in religious or otherwise irrational brainwashing). However, I can imagine that in some situations, it might take some time to arrange this – perhaps a few hours or days. There is no guarantee that a charity will be immediately available 24/7. If there is no one immediately available to care for the child, I cannot imagine that the proper thing would be for the government to simply walk away and leave the child to starve or freeze. Yes, in principle I agree it should depend on donations. However, the more I think about it, the smaller this problem seems. What I mean is that I don't think there will be many instances where the government has to provide anything more than a few hours or days of support. Thus, the incremental cost will be small. Still, to avoid requiring anyone to support someone else's child, it should depend on donations.