["Rights" of disabled individuals]

Not at all. I am saying if it is a result of the negligence of others you are not responsible, they are. If you car has a manufacturer's fault the fault is with the manufacturer not you. You are only responsible if the accident is a result of your driving, then you are to blame. But you cannot rightly be held responsible for an accident caused by a car crashing due to a manufacturer's fault. That would be an injustice.

How can you be rightly geld responsible for a car having faulty brake pads when you drove it out of the new car sale yard? The people who are to blame should be held responsible. In this case the manufacturer is to blame. If you are held responsible then they will get away scott free for causing an accident and you will be punished for something that is not your fault. That is an injustice. Justice would be those that caused the accident, the manufacturer, being held accountable, not you.

I wouldn't blame him, I wouldn't expect him to pay for it. It wasn't his fault. But nor would I pay for it myself. I would expect the manufacturer to pay for it. it was their fault. And if they refused I would take them to court and apply for damages.

In short, I am not arguing for a lack of culpability, just arguing that the culprits are the manufacturers not the drivers when the accident is caused by a manufacturer's fault. To hold the driver responsible is to hold him responsible for the actions of another man. That is an injustice. Each man should be accountable for his own actions, not the actions of others.

DM - As between the driver of the rear-ending car and the driver of the rear-ended car, the former has greater culpability because it is his vehicle that caused the accident. I agree that the company should be held responsible for defective products.

What about an unplanned pregnancy (that results in live birth) due to a defective condom? Will you disclaim responsibility for the child and tell the child to seek support from the Trojan company?

["Rights" of disabled individuals]

So, in other words, the failure of contraceptives gives them a responsibility to the child? I disagree with that if that is what you were saying? In such a situation they have no more responsibility to the child than a driver does to pay for the damage caused to your car by their car having a technical fault.

My father was never really there for me or my sister when we were kids, neither finacially nor any other way. But I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that he has come back now and is trying to buy his way out of his feeling of guilt by giving us money. I just told him not to bother with me.

DM - It seems like your saying that, unless you intend the result, you cannot be held responsible for your actions. "I didn't mean to get her pregnant - I used a condom - therefore, I have no responsibility whatsoever." "It was my car's fault due to mechanical failure. I didn't intend to rear-end the other car - therefore, I have no responsibility." In both cases, the law would hold you responsible and I agree that you should be held responsible.

If you were the driver of the car that was rear-ended, and the driver of the other car (that did the rear-ending) explained to you that the accident resulted from mechanical failure, would you say to the other driver: "Oh, I see, it's not your fault, you have no responsibility - please be on your way. I will pay for the damage myself." How would you handle that situation (and I don't want to hear about "no fault" insurance because that is avoiding the point; besides, making a claim would probably increase your rates, and you probably have a deductible to meet, so the accident could cost you plenty)?

["Rights" of disabled individuals]

It's not slavery because slavery is involuntary servitude. It is voluntary because having a child is a choice. You don't have to have a child. You don't have to have sex, which, when doing so, you know there is always the risk of pregnancy - or worse. An unplanned pregnancy is really an unwanted pregnancy. Except in cases of insurance fraud or suicide, car accidents aren't planned either. But they are unwanted. Nonetheless, the owner of the vehicle at fault or the driver is responsible. Why? Because it is the consequence of an action, regardless of whether it is planned or not. Those consequences could include losing a lawsuit and having to pay a judgment or settlement, even if it means attaching wages - or in the case of a woman that hit my wife, restitution that the probation department required she pay us for costs not covered by insurance. She was held accountable for an action no doubt she did not plan, but was nonetheless responsible for. But when she got behind the wheel, she assumed the risk. The same goes with having sex.

Adoption is fine. Actually, it's great. If you can't take good care of a child or can't provide what you feel a child deserves, it is very noble to allow one of the many willing couples who either can't have children and want one, or who want to find happiness in taking care of a disabled child, to adopt. I know there are some people who think that's ducking the responsibility, but it's not. Giving your child to a good home fulfills the parents' responsibility to ensure it is cared for.

It is about owning up to the consequences of one's actions and being accountable for personal responsibility. It is irresponsible to choose to create another human being and then throw it out with the trash to fend for itself. Parents are obligated to be accountable for their actions, and take responsibility by caring for their children or seeing to it that someone else does voluntarily.

I agree with you. Unplanned pregnancies are simply accidents, but hopefully with more joy in the initial process than an auto wreck. But in both cases equally, the people involved must live up to their responsibilities. In my opinion, the fact that two people created another by accident, as opposed to planning, does not alter their responsibility to care for the child. This is one area where I agree with the way the law is written (in my state - Illinois). Regardless of the marital status of mom and dad, both parents are legally responsible for the child's welfare, which often means financial responsibility. The right to assistance belongs to the child, not the custodial parent.

Adoption is no different than a planned pregnancy because I have never heard of someone accidentally adopting a child. It is a thoroughly planned process. The reponsibility for the child's welfare is the same.

I think these principles are in accord with what I understand Objectivism to be; i.e., you are responsible for the consequences of your actions, whether it is by accident or on purpose. Some actions simply involve greater consequences and responsibility than others.

[War On Drugs]

sNerd identifies the key difference. The drug trade is dangerous because it is illegal not because of the nature or marketability of the product. In addition to what he said, there are some other issues. Because drug dealing is illegal, dealers are not afforded the normal recourses one might have in civil disagreements. You can't sue a supplier for not delivering a product that's paid for or a "clerk" who is skimming money or product off the top. There is no legal recourse for settling disputes as to who has the right to sell their product at a given location so you have "turf wars". Drug dealers rob other drug dealers because you can't go to the police and tell them your cocaine got ripped off. Sure, they try to make up some BS story about being robbed of cash or something, but almost invariably these stories are so transparent that they don't lead to prosecution.

I think you and SoftwareNerd are giving drug dealers WAY too much credit. Drug dealers do not resort to illegal means of maintaining their business because they cannot claim protection from police and the courts. They do so because that is how they live their lives. Do you really think drug dealers would sue each other for breach of contract (or some other civil cause of action) if only the courts would protect them? I highly doubt it. They would much rather simply dispense justice at the end of their 9mm.

If drugs were legalized, my guess is that the vast majority of the current drug dealers would not begin to run lawful businesses because they have no desire to play by the rules of lawful society. They would have no idea how to run a legitimate business and would fail miserably. They know only physical force, intimidation, and fear tactics. I am guessing they would instead turn to some other illegal trade, such as prostitution, black market gun sales, etc.

The response of drug dealers to legalizing drugs has no bearing on my belief that drugs should be legalized and people should be allowed to make their own choice about drug use. If someone wants to ruin their life shooting heroin - have at it - but don't ask me to pay for the rehab and other costs associated with "getting clean".

["Rights" of disabled individuals]

I can only wonder how much more generous we would all be if we weren't losing so much of every dollar we earn and spend to taxes.

I think you've hit on an important point. We "give" (read: are forcibly deprived of) tax dollars to subsidize countless social service programs that we would not otherwise voluntarily support. Thus, we feel that we have already "given" so much, why volunteer more. I believe there are many, many causes worthy of support that should not be funded by the government, but they are. If I didn't see so many of my tax dollars wasted on funding arts and other activities that are wholly the province of the private sector, I might be more willing to contribute to the causes of my choosing. By the way, I do raise money for cancer research, but only because I value the group I contribute to and the work they do.

["Rights" of disabled individuals]

It should be noted that your concern in this issue is not alone. With that in mind, let me ask this of your concern; if we lived in an Objectivist society, would you value helping disabled people enough to voluntarily give your time and money to that effort?

I might be willing to help so long as the details (how much time, money, etc.) are left to my decision. I may decide to devote my efforts to raising money for Leukemia research instead, or some other worthy cause.

I think my original post has been misunderstood. I'm not advocating for "forced" donations. I was simply trying to figure out how such causes are seen under the Objectivist theory.

["Rights" of disabled individuals]

An appeal to mass opinion is not an argument. Nevertheless, out of curiosity, do you think most people would agree that this is the right approach? Or, would most people feel that any system that lets this happen is imperfect? If the latter, then we know that the disabled have nothing to worry about -- there are enough benevolent folk to take care of them.

I do believe that most people feel that this is the right approach, but I'm not sure that most people would actually do anything about it. "Passing the buck" is almost tradition. Don't get me wrong, it burns me to think that my taxes are paying for special services to people who are "needy" for whatever reason. No one is entitled, or has a right, to their own apartment (in contrast to the protester's statement), and no one should be compelled to contribute their "property" against their own judgment. I guess I'm just unsure of the level of "benevolence" out there.

If you're asking whether they have ordinary rights, the answer is basically "yes", but in severe cases there may be an issue of rights-guardianship. With severe mental incapacitation, a physical adult may be no more capable of exercising their rights than a 2 year old, hence a guardian may have to be appointed. That would be one area that is properly the concern of the court system, to oversee rights-custodianship according to objective law. But that presupposes a volunteer, so it's not the duty of the courts to force someone to oversee a disabled person, or to force payment to an overseer.

Agreed.

["Rights" of disabled individuals]

Yes...but ...whatever the political system, people such as you've described live at the "mercy" of others. The real difference is whether such help comes forth voluntarily, or whether people can be forced at gunpoint to proved "help".

If I understand you correctly, if no one volunteers assistance, severely disabled individuals are left to fend for themselves under the Objectivist viewpoint? This would be my understanding of Rand's description of a "true" capitalist system.

["Rights" of disabled individuals]

What is the Objectivist view towards the disabled (physically, mentally, or both) who are incapable of taking care of themselves? According to Rand, the government has three legitimate purposes: police, military, courts. None of these provides for any kind of social services. Does this mean that a severely disabled individual lives at the mercy of voluntary action taken by those who decide to provide charitable assistance? Assume the disabled individual is "alone in the world" without family or friends to provide room & board.

This question came to my mind as I read an article in today's Chicago Tribune about a group of disabled individuals who staged a protest in front of the American Medical Association's headquarters, demanding that the AMA support federal legislation that would provide greater assistance for disabled individuals so that they can live alone rather than in an institution. One of the protesters was quoted as saying "a person has a right to decide where to live." I agree, but my question is "at whose expense?" I'm fairly certain of the Objectivist viewpoint about this issue.

However, there are those that are incapable of choosing their clothes, let alone where to live. What is the Objectivist viewpoint about this?

Thanks.