JeffS

Just finished AofF and it would apply to any literature you wish to write. It's really very basic writing education, but much more helpful than anything I've ever read on writing.

If no one can force anyone to treat a sick individual, how do you propose the government secure your right to health care? What other personal responsibilities of yours do you think I should be forced to pay for? Car insurance? After all, in today's society, especially in N. America, one practically needs a car to survive. How about home/renters insurance? After all, doesn't everyone have the right to a home?

Okay, that's how I understood it.

So, every human is born with certain rights (at least the right to life) even if they're born in N. Korea?

I'm afraid I still don't get it. Does Man have a right to his life as a function of his nature as a rational animal - and therefore his right to life exists regardless of the society around him; or, is Man's right to life contingent upon whether or not someone else gives that right to him?

That's what I would argue, but I think JJJJ would disagree.

I'm not sure I understand this. Before rights can be respected, they would have to exist first, correct? How are they brought into existence? Who creates them?

Okay, that was going to be my next question: Couldn't anyone claim the right to deter or avenge a crime? Since that appears to be the case, anyone could have claimed the right to come to the aid of the Maersk - even a private navy? I think you would disagree with this since you qualified your statement with "as long as there's no government providing objective justice to punish that crime." So, I think our disagreement would be with that qualification; what constitutes a "government providing objective justice?" The current situation is an appropriate case in point. Here are the facts as I understand them: 1) A ship flying an American flag, and registered in the US, was sailing in international waters. 2) The ship was hijacked - in other words, hijackers initiated force against US citizens. Since there is no such thing as an "international government," there is no government "providing objective justice to punish that crime (hijacking)." Yes, there are a multitude of governments which could provide objective justice, but what determines which one gets to? And since objective justice isn't something confined to governments - since anyone could provide objective justice - why must governments be the ones to act? Wouldn't anyone capable of providing objective justice have the right to provide it? Now, I understand why governments are necessary: Men institute governments so one objective code of rules protects their rights. However, (Both quotes are here.) When an American travels, there may be another institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce its rules of social conduct. It won't be a proper government, but it will be a government with the exclusive right to use retaliatory physical force. How could the US government claim a right to use retaliatory physical force when some other government has a monopoly on force for that geographical region? What principle gives the US the moral right to protect its citizens' individual rights when they are out of its geographical area? How could the US have protected US oil corporations' property from Saudi Arabia? That is not the case we have with the Maersk. With the Maersk we have Americans traveling to a place where no government exists - no government "holds exclusive power to enforce certain rules." No men have instituted any government, in the geographical area in question, so that one objective code of rules protects their rights. We can agree the US government has the right to use force since there is no government, but is it obligated to do so?

I hope it is enforced. Perhaps politicians will be the first to be tried seeing as how they expel the most CO2 laden hot air on the planet.

Okay, I get it now. You've convinced me on embargoes. I'd like to return to my original question: What objective principle extends American government protection throughout the globe? You answered, "Individual rights." If I understand what you've written, you're not only arguing the US government has a responsibility to protect the individual rights of American citizens, but also that any free nation has a moral right to retaliate against those who have initiated force. Do I have that correct?

Why do I not? Do I not have the right to trade with whomever I wish? There are many differences between the US and NK, but the only one you mentioned was that the government of NK initiates force against its citizens. I take it that's not the only criteria for initiating force against citizens so they don't trade with any nation the government doesn't like? What other criteria are there? Jake, should the government have the moral right to use force in order to prevent me from trading with anyone if I've not initiated force in any way?

That's possible. So, you're arguing I should definitely give up freedom because it's possible I might have a loss of freedom thrust upon me? What personal freedom have I lost here? I would never presume to know what is best for anyone's life, let alone close relatives. Why would I be forced to pay higher medical expenses if they decide eating at McDonald's and drinking Coke is what's best for them? So, morally coherent and rational preclude happiness? Yes, I value my own happiness more than I value the happiness of strangers. Are you arguing I should value their happiness higher than my own? When they're capable of making their own rational choices. That doesn't mean, "When they're able to make choices which I agree with."

Yes, they're stopping me from trading with North Korea and Cuba, among others. The government has put a gun to my head and said, "Don't trade with Cuba, or else." Were I to sell, for example, corn to North Korea, how would I be initiating force against anyone? The US government itself initiates force against its citizens - should we also not trade with anyone in the US, or with the US government? I'm not sure what you're arguing here. It seems you're arguing a government should only protect its citizens rights when "practical," or when it's convenient or in the best interests of the government. What relationship am I ignoring? I'm certainly not ignoring the fact that the US government must protect the rights of its citizens. This entire conversation has been an attempt at defining the limits of that relationship. I'm still not sure if it's limited, or unlimited. Are there any objective governments? Regardless, so, if there is no objective government then everyone has the same moral right to use force against anyone who has initiated force against some third party? So, if some government functionary evaluates protecting your right to life would cost more than all benefits, the government can, and should, choose not to protect your right to life? What would have been so difficult in saying, "It's not their oil. It belongs to the companies which developed the land. The Saudis stole that property from its rightful owners - the companies which brought that technology and capital to Saudi Arabia."

Hmmm, I'm still not getting it. I don't commit any crimes, I keep myself healthy, I've got very stable finances. What personal freedoms would I be losing? Yes. I assume you wouldn't because these things could kill a lot of people if they were used? Cars have killed more people than all the nuclear bombs in history. Shouldn't we ban those? I see. And the people in charge of making these decisions for all us retarded children make "good" decisions because they're... what? Superhuman? Really, really, smart? You? I see. So, instead of them paying, I should have to pay? Why? Because I'm smarter than they?

Because the government could then legitimately tell me who I can and cannot trade with. But what does that mean? Are Americans traveling in Europe protected by the Constitution? If they are accused of crimes, will they be afforded Constitutional due process? Should they? As an American citizen, should I be able to call upon the US military to protect me wherever I go? Anarchy already exists in these areas - there is no government in fact. Furthermore, in areas where there are governments incapable or unwilling to enforce law, there is no practical government and anarchy reigns. My point is that if no government exists to govern these areas, and there isn't, then any force used in defense of some other can't be construed as self-defense - it can only be construed as the force of a hired gun. Okay, then I have a moral right to kill someone using force against anyone else? Absolutely not. If I understand it correctly, the purpose of having the government handle someone's defense is so that government maintains its monopoly on retaliatory force. This is proper where a government exists, but what about where governments don't exist? Who has a monopoly on the use of force? I'm trying to establish the boundaries of that protection and explore the problems those boundaries present. Is the government's obligation to protect American citizens and their rights boundless? Sorry, I misunderstood you. I read your quote to mean, "Since the government does other immoral things, this one little immoral action is no big deal."

You need to read the actual study, because if it's the one I think you're referencing then you need to know that a major portion of the "grade" received depended upon whether the nation's healthcare was socialized. In essence, they set up a competition which the US could only lose. Here's the rundown.

Where's your argument for it decreasing my personal freedom? How are you defining "population?" Is that everyone, a majority, a lot, more than 0? If it's the first two, do you believe the majority, if not everyone, is incapable of making proper decisions and therefore need babysitters? If the latter two, so what? Everything on the planet is dangerous. Everything. Too much oxygen and you'll die. Should we ban/regulate oxygen? Hmmm, judging by how much I love McDonald's and Coke, I think they've succeeded.

I'm not sure I buy that. If there's anyone who knows the importance of proper terms, and is careful about using them, it's Ms. Rand. Thanks for the links. My position was stated by Myself: "How can a government legitimately bar its own citizens from trading? Economic power is not a legitimate branch of the government's monopoly on the use of force. If a country is fighting an enemy it must be done with physical force or voluntary economic pressure. To do otherwise would require the intiation of force against its own citizens which is immoral." I didn't see any convincing arguments against this. I, too, would support an embargo on anyone whom I disagree morally with, but that would be a voluntary individual action. I would not support the government putting a gun to my head and telling me not to trade with whomever it disagrees with. Surely that would be an initiation of force. Is this absolute? Does it mean the US government's job is to protect Americans' rights wherever they are and regardless of those Americans' actions? I mean, are American citizens in every country entitled to Constitutional protections? What is "acceptable?" Should the government also have official websites listing other things dangerous to Americans - like dangerous products? Well, what if you're just visiting? Should you still be considered an American, and therefore protected by the Constitution? I don't mean to parse your post so much, and if I've missed a salient point please restate it, but it seems to me this doesn't answer the problem. I think D'kian stated it pretty well: "should the government's mandate to protect the individual rights of its citizens be restricted to the borders of a nation, or should it be extended over the rest of the world?" In a world of proper governments we wouldn't have this problem, but we live in a world where there are no proper governments. With a few somewhat proper governments, where at least some property rights are respected and protected, we're confronted with the problem of how much responsibility those traders should bear. I'll put this in terms I'm most familiar with: securities trading. There are only a few foreign countries I'll consider purchasing securities in. For example, I would never buy securities in a Russian or Chinese company. Of course, I've missed some great opportunities by excluding these from my radar, but the risk of those countries simply stealing my property is far too great. And I wouldn't expect my government to protect my property if Russia, for example, decided to nationalize any company I purchased. If we expand this to shipping, or developing an oil field, why should the US government protect that property? The companies, the traders, who invested the capital to ship goods past Somalia, or invested the capital to develop oil fields in Saudi Arabia understood, or should've understood, they were dealing with governments who don't, or won't, respect property rights. Should I, through my taxes, now step in to bail them out because they've made poor decisions? If I can call upon the government to employ its guns regardless of what risks I take, why can't I call upon the government to employ its guns when I take the risk of perhaps not getting a good education, or having children when I'm too stupid, too lazy, or too careless to care for them? I've never understood this. What gives the government this power? I can understand my government using retaliatory force against someone who initiates force against me; the right of retaliatory force is properly mine, but I gave my government that right. Where does my government get the power to use retaliatory force against "A" who initiates force against "B" who is not a citizen of my government? The right of retaliatory force is properly "B's," and he did not relinquish that right to my government. "A" initiates force against "B," my government is not a party to that in any way. Wouldn't my government's intervention be an initiation of force? I don't see a problem with hiring the US government to do the job, or sending a private navy. I don't think it's an issue of competing laws as in having private vigilante groups within the US. I understand the need to have a single government with a monopoly on the use of force within the US. But to argue the same should apply globally necessarily means there would need to be a global government. As long as it's a proper government, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but we're a long way from it. Since we don't have that, since we're basically living in a world where many areas are lawless and ungoverned, private security seems wholly necessary. Now, if the US wants to state, "We're going to establish US law in all these lawless areas - we're going to patrol international waters and make them US territory." then fine. But I doubt that's going to be the case. What we have now is the US government doing a poor job of bringing the rule of law somewhat de facto, but not de jure. In essence, the US government is just another one of those vigilante groups with just as much, or just as little, right to do so. Well, this is a little like "two wrongs make a right," isn't it? Just because we've accepted the government doing immoral things shouldn't prompt us into accepting further immoral actions, and it certainly shouldn't prompt us into supporting immoral actions.

Yes, it's quite possible I'm confusing the two. What would be the correct position? That's not a law any Objectivist would support, is it? Shouldn't we be free to trade with whomever we wish? That's a bit arbitrary, isn't it? Americans get killed and abducted quite systematically in places all over the globe. You seem to be simultaneously arguing we should not act ("declare war"), yet we should act ("the US military should be sent in") when they are. What is the appropriate government response, and what is it dictated by? They are similar because there are competing legal frameworks involved. International law is not the same as US law, and neither are the same as North Korean law. If we're going to protect our right to freely trade with other countries, then we should be at war with every country on the planet since none of our citizens are allowed to trade freely with theirs. Your last sentence strikes me as a bit hyperbolic. While it's true that nations gain more wealth through free trade with others, it's a bit of a stretch to argue their very existence depends upon it. To all, I'm reminded of something Ayn Rand said during one of her appearances on Donahue. The question went something along the lines of, "How do you feel about the problems with the Middle East and their oil." Her response was something like, "It's not their oil. We found it. We developed it. They stole it from us. They stole our technology." My questions were, "Who's 'we'? What is 'ours'?" "We" didn't find any oil; "we" didn't develop any oil deposits; private US (and British) oil corporations did. Nothing of "ours" was stolen; property and technology belonging to private US oil corporations were stolen. Now, if we want to state that American citizens are always entitled to the protections of our military and police forces, regardless of where they might be, aren't we just begging for a lot more conflict? Should we come to the rescue of every American citizen, who has chosen to live and/or trade under much different legal frameworks, just because they're American citizens? Do they bear any responsibility for choosing such conditions? If so, what is the extent of their responsibility? Is it limited to only American citizens? If so, why? If it's the principle that all individuals are free, then it seems the only criteria is that one be an individual, not necessarily an American citizen. If that's the case, then shouldn't we be protecting everyone's rights? Or, is the principle only that all Americans are free?

I'm a little confused about something. It seems most people are advocating some sort of government intervention in what is going on. While I'm glad the hostage is safe, and the world is certainly better off with the death of these pirates, and everyone loves it when highly capable people perform so very well as these sharpshooters did, I don't see how this was any business of the US government's. If we begin with the premise that a proper government's role is to protect its citizens from foreign aggression, does that protection extend beyond our borders? It doesn't seem to me that it can. Imagine an American traveling to North Korea and starting a newspaper with weekly editorials about Lil' Kim's abuses. He wouldn't last long. Should the US government then step in to protect his freedom of speech? There have been several American corporations who've had their assets nationalized throughout the globe. Should the government have stepped in and protected their property? If not, then why should we step in and protect this American sailor? I understood the Objectivist position to be that if someone wished to do business outside our borders, outside the protection of our law and our military, then they do so at their own peril. What Objective principle extends American government protection throughout the globe?

I would argue most Americans don't know what capitalism is.

I'm not quite sure I understand your point here. As I understand it, and if I may paraphrase Miss Rand, we can view the government as our agent - providing services for which no private solution is rational or possible. A proper government will provide only national defense, police and law courts and we should pay for those services. If we pay for them, shouldn't we have a right to receive them, just as if I pay for a burger at Micky D's I have a right to receive it? If my taxes are being used to pay for the service of schooling my children, then don't I have a right to receive that service? Of course, this lays my argument bare in that, if my taxes are being used to pay for the service of providing for me should I not have the resources to provide for myself, then I should have a right to receive that service - i.e. I should have the right to receive welfare money. The problem I see with this is taxes shouldn't be used for public schooling either. Therefore, it would be just as wrong for me to accept public schooling as it would be for me to accept welfare money.

This seems like rationalism to me. The way things are, none of us are paying into a system which if we stopped paying into for X number of years we could expect to still receive benefits. The money we've "pain-in" was "paid-out" a long time ago. In fact, the money we'll pay in for the next several lifetimes has already been "paid-out." Just because I've paid taxes in the past, even overpaid, doesn't grant me a claim to the production of some future worker.

I understand now my interpretation was too limited, as I noted shortly after the quote you provided. However, I don't see how my morality would allow me to accept the benefit of a social program (which is not someone's good will) when I know that benefit is not provided out of any care or concern for me, but has been forcibly taken from someone else.

So, if the state compelled you to give all of your poduction to someone else, effectively making you a slave, your moral principles would direct you only to stay alive? It would be morally acceptable to live as a slave rather than die fighting for your freedom?