source

The government has the exclusive power to use force in purpose of defense and preservation of rights of its citizens. This means that one does not have the right to go about and deal justice. In the army, every soldier is under orders. Any activities outside of what the orders say is the soldier's sole responsibility. How long do the defensive actions take? As long as the enemy is capable of and intent on attacking further.

No it doesn't. But someone needs to gather up those who do blue collar jobs, tell them what do do and how and amass enough money to pay for the job they'll do, and that is where intellectual effort is involved. It doesn't have to be the worker on a production line who makes decisions, but decisions need to be made for business/production to work. You may have a point there. But perhaps I'm trying to prove my point on wrong grounds. Plants don't have rights, men do. All men (and that usually includes women and children in my vocabulary) have rights. Plants and non-sentient animals and inanimate matter don't have rights. That means that plants, non-sentient animals and inanimate matter can be property, while humans can't. The concept of rights includes right to life, right to own property and right to the pursuit of happiness (among others) and that is enough to show that noone can be property. You got it. Criminals, in my view, should only be held in custody for as long as they need to compensate for all the losses of the party they've damaged. But that's only my view. I have no idea how the government should deal with mentally disturbed people, and may I add, I don't support the generally accepted idea of prisons because they are a heavy burden of the productive part of the society. I'd say that such a person needs professional help. I can say nothing else about someone who tortures a living entity. However, the issue is that of rights. Still I say animals have no rights. A right, by definition is "A moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." (Ayn Rand, Man's Rights) Therefore, by their definition rights do not apply to animals. Also, I'd suggest reading this essay. Not my oppinion.

I guess I haven't made myself clear enough. Ayn Rand was the one who gave those more fundamental concepts and these (the ones she gave) are more fundamental than individual rights. It is the concepts defined/found by her that the concept of individual rights is based on. This is why I don't want to discuss them on my site. They've already been defined, proven and even concretized. If anyone wishes to learn about them, I'll point him or her to relevant literature.

I've opened a web site about 2 months ago about individual rights the purpose of which is to research individual rights, starting from the very beginning - at right to life. Although Objectivism offers reasons for existence of individual rights, I've decided not to burden the site with that except when giving a reference. Individual rights is a concept built on other, more fundamental concepts, and the purpose of the site is to research that concept. Research has reached the point of defining rights which are consequences of the right to the pursuit of happiness. They are all listed, but their definitions are still vague until better ones are found. If you'd like to assist in this research, there are several ways you can do this. Join the forum on the site for discussions about the site's current content. Send an essay or article which has to do with individual rights to my e-mail. Devise a good definition of one of the listed rights (one better that the one already listed) and give your reasons why you think it is better. Suggest terms for dictionary and their definitions. Suggest a new individual right and show how it is related to other rights (if possible in the same manner as provided on the site), give its definition, etc. The link to the site and the forum is in my signature. If you'd like to e-mail me, use the link in the "Contact" section on my site.

Well, why don't you open a human production plant and start producing humans? Production is a process involving, among other things, intellectual effort. The product is man-made. A human being is not man-made, he or she is a natural product. According to my right to life logic, no human being can ever be property. Certain rights of his can be suspended if convicted of a crime, but he can never become anyone's property. Furthermore, I'm not quite certain yet whether capital punishment should ever be issued by the courts. I'm still gathering arguments. Animals don't have rights.

First of all, we can only guess how things would work in a laissez-faire capitalism. To say a few things about the example above, of commuters travelling by car or by bus. Clearly, in laissez-faire capitalism, which is by the way the only ethically sound system according to rational egoism, roads would be private property. I am no road specialist, but for a rational egoist who also happens to be a road specialist, a congested traffic system would be like heaven (if I can borrow the meaning of this term). There is no knowing what solutions would a free mind come up with, unless it was set free. It is also hard to tell whether it would be a roads specialist who would solve the problem. Perhaps someone would invent a new kind of transport which wouldn't require roads. Then again, who says that there would be any commuters at all? Perhaps architects who weren't so limited by today's prevailingly socialist standards would be able to design such buildings which would at the same time serve as industrial buildings and as home for the workers in that industry. But there are two errors in the above argument. The less important one is that all of that is science fiction. The more important one is that by saying that, I would actually be accepting an invitation of the socialist/altruist to fight the battle on the ground of his choice, instead of stating the relevant facts which concern the issue. What is the alternative to a free society? Slavery. Socialism, communism, feudalism, etc. What is the alternative to rational egoism? Cynicism? Altruism? Self-sacrifice. The world you have today. Neither of the alternatives is moral. Even though a free society is not a functional/practical society in socialist/altruist view, it is still the only morally acceptable society. There is no such thing as an Objectivist society. I assume what you mean is a capitalist society, namely laissez-faire capitalism. History has already given the answer. Look at America in 18-19th century. It's not a bizzare example as they say, but a stupid example. They try to prove their point by resorting to examples which aren't and can't be real, pretty much as the priests base ethical principles on unreal ideas which they call supernatural forces. Howard Roark's one example. See my above argument.

I believe that you've hit a brick wall because of a faulty definition of property. I've recently defined this term (when I was doing a research on property rights) like this: "[Property is a] tangible or intangible posession, produced, or acquired from another by means of trade." Applying pure logic without context here, you would end up hitting the same brick wall because, while human beings aren't produced, they can be acquired if they are already property of another. Applying context here, however, would be asking the question: "How could they become property?" EVERY and I mean every human being has right to life. "The right to life, and that which is required to sustain it. To pursue values and productive achievement as an individual sees fit for his own existence; as is determined by his own volition. To exist as an end in himself, not as an end to others." (definition by Charles M. Hildreth) Right to life being defined as such, it is crystal clear why a human being cannot be considered property. Hope this makes things clearer.