Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

JeffS

Regulars
  • Posts

    512
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by JeffS

  1. Why would the two not follow? I mean, if All men are mortal, and Aristotle is a Man, then Aristotle must be mortal, right? If All men have equal rights, and children are men, then all children have equal rights, right? I don't have the "Answers" book (what is this, please?), nor the Objectivism-CD. I should probably get the latter, but have never heard of the former. What is all this based upon? Why do you think any of it, but specifically why is it appropriate that the law not allow a stranger to walk up to an orphaned 12 year old and kill him or molest him? Should the law allow a parent to sacrifice their dog to the gods?
  2. I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't mesh with what Ms. Rand wrote in the quotes I provided. Not to commit argument from authority, but what am I missing in what she wrote? Acting as the child's guardian, the adult needs (properly) to evaluate the most advantageous (to the child) path for exercising that child's rights. The child may hate the school, but it's the best school for him to contract with based on his long term goals (as evaluated by the adult). That's the nature of guardianship - the guardian is obligated to make the best decisions possible for their charge, regardless of the whims and wishes of the charge. After all, that is why there's a guardian in the first place - because the charge isn't capable of properly (rationally) exercising his rights. If the guardian isn't exercising the rights of the child, then whose rights is he exercising? His own? If so, what principle gives rise to this right? I'm not clear what your position is on whether children, the retarded, the insane, or the otherwise incapable of rational thought have rights. Do they?
  3. I encourage you to read through the thread I posted above. Pay particular attention to RationalBiker's posts beginning approximately around page 20. The logic is clearly laid out there. If you have a counter argument to that logic, I would be more than willing to consider it. A baby is an existent. A human baby is an existent with a volitional, rational consciousness. In the case of the baby, the difference is a volitional, rational consciousness. You're making an assumption that some undefined, some unnamed something values all babies, all retarded people, and all disabled people. I don't think that assumption is valid. As it stands, your assertion seems like a floating abstraction. No problem. Just show me the valuers. Allow me to restate your argument to verify I understand where you're coming from: Someone, somewhere values something. Therefore, the state should step in and use force to ensure that something is protected for that someone. Do I have that right? You've switched the context. In your example, there is an actual plaintiff - someone, a definable, clearly identified individual must come forth to claim their rights have been abridged. What happens when no one comes to claim their rights have been abridged when Johnny gets tortured? Does the state step in anyway because someone, at some undefined point in time, might come along to demonstrate they value Johnny and their rights have been violated? I'm actually writing about them because I want to understand the logical principle underlying the nature of rights. There are so many more things I value more highly than the great mass of insane and retarded individuals that they barely register on my screen. In short, I could care less, but it would be really difficult to do so.
  4. If the state is going to rescue these people, that presumes the state values them. Can the state value anything? Which presumes there are "valuers out there who want to adopt them." I don't think you can justify the state using force based upon the presumption that there will be someone to come along, eventually, and grant the government sanction for protecting their rights. Either someone is having their rights abridged, and the government needs to step in to protect those rights; or no one is having their rights abridged, and the government needs to do nothing. No, I think the answer lies in determining whether severely retarded or insane people have rights. I'm convinced babies have rights from birth.
  5. Well, if children are Men, then they must have the same rights as all other men: "Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another." - Ayn Rand, “Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84 (from the ARL) "There are no 'rights' of special groups, there are no 'rights of farmers, or workers, of businessmen, of employees, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.' There are only the Rights of Man - rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals." Ayn Rand, "Man's Rights", VOS, p. 114-15 If every man did not have the same exact rights as every other man, then conflicts would arise. However, I spent the better part of yesterday reading through the 26 pages of Minors: Rights and Children and am convinced that if children do have rights, they also have a right to support from their parents. This "special right" is not really special at all - it's merely an extension of their right to life and the fact that their parents voluntarily chose to bring them into existence knowing full well that existence would begin with a period where the child could not fend for itself. This constitutes a sort of contract between parent and child whereby the parent has agreed to provide the child with support; the parent has agreed to be guardian of that child's rights until such time as that child is capable of exercising his rights independently. This doesn't confer an extra right to the child. It affirms his right to life, if indeed he does have a right to life. This reasoning applies for someone who is retarded from birth, or insane from birth. The parents, or whomever has voluntarily agreed to be the person's caretaker, would simply be the person's caretaker from cradle to grave (or pass on the responsibility to whomever agrees to the burden). The retarded or insane person still has all rights as any other Man, those rights are simply exercised by a caretaker. However, it doesn't work for someone who becomes retarded or insane through no fault of anyone else. Assuming this condition is permanent (and barring intervention I don't see how it would not be), the newly retarded or insane person has no claim on the actions of anyone else unless he has previously contracted with another to become the guardian of his rights. That makes sense, but that's what I was trying to do. It wasn't as clear nor as comprehensive as Ms. Rand's explanation, but I tried to begin from the nature of these individuals. What are they? As you pointed out earlier, they are like animals. Children have a rational faculty, but they don't use it. The retarded and the insane, by definition, have no rational faculty (or, at least a rational faculty so damaged as to make it's existence irrelevant). For all intents and purposes, they are simply animals. Yet we don't recognize rights in animals. Ms. Rand writes: "The source of rights is man's nature.... the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind - a rational being - that cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.... Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival." - VOS, "Mans Rights," various pages Am I wrong in concluding from this that it is man's nature as a being of volitional, rational abilty that gives rise to his rights? If I am correct in concluding that, then what in the nature of children, the retarded, and the insane gives rise to their rights since they are not beings of volitional, rational ability? EDIT: Actually, I'll remove children from those who I asserted were "not beings of volitional, rational ability." I understand now that they are. My question still stands for the retarded and the insane.
  6. To be clear, our rights are protected by the government (properly formed). If children (or the insane/retarded) have no rights due to their inability to reason, then there is nothing for the government to protect. I'm not clear on several issues here: 1) Either children/the insane/the retarded are Men or not. 2) If they are, then they are entitled to all natural rights of Men, and no others. 3) If they are not, then they are not entitled to those rights. 4) If they are not Men, then what are they? Perhaps answering the last is the proper place to start in order to answer them all? As Ms. Rand began by examining the nature of Man in order to form the Objectivist view of rights, we need to examine the nature of children/the insane/the retarded. The overwhelming difference between Men and these others (for brevity, please), and the lynchpin of Objectivist philosophy on rights, is that Man must live by his reason. These others, by definition, can not reason, and therefore can not live by their reason. They can only live by being "protected" by guardians. Some Man must choose to assume the burden of protecting them and serve as a rational mind. So, what role does the state have in this? If rights derive from Man's need to live rationally, and we have an entity that can not live rationally, then what rights pertain to that entity? If no rights pertain to that entity, then what would government be protecting? Furthermore, and I think you would agree (based on your response above), children do not have a "special 'right'" as Hotu Matua asserted.
  7. Protected by whom? Rights are not extended as a courtesy.
  8. I understand what you're trying to say, but I think terms need to be more clearly defined. I don't think it's true that the state can only protect the rights between rational parties. If that were true, then the state would have no position if one of the party members were irrational. The initiation of force is irrational. Therefore, if the state can only protect the rights between rational parties, the state would have no position in all cases of initiation of force because at least one of the parties is irrational. If you clarify your statement by arguing the state can only protect rights between parties capable of rational thought then there's only one problem left to solve - which I think is your original problem: What if a rational person kills a child/insane person/retarded person/irrational person? According to your argument above, none could be convicted of violating a child's right to live since a child is not capable of rational thought, and therefore has no rights to violate.
  9. Only one thing bothers me about this - your family member is dead, there's a child with access to a gun, the capability to use it, and it's possible someone else might be killed. How does the state protect the rights of those possible others? However, I think that's a good argument, though it moves the focus from rights to intent. Certainly consideration of intent should then be extended to all defendents, correct? The prosecutor of a grown man should be required to prove intent? If a retarded/insane man is accused of a crime, the prosecutor must also prove intent, correct? If so, then no special protections are afforded the child/retarded/insane and therefore no extra rights. The child/retarded/insane can be considered full rights bearing individuals.
  10. Sorry about the number of questions, but I think they're all born from not understanding the underlying principle. I might get there with this question, but reserve my right to still be confused ! My first inclination is to say the state should certainly take his age into consideration. I think I've heard all the arguments for such a position: the child didn't have any understanding of what would happen; his rational mind is still developing; he can be reformed. It would be unfortunate to have prisons full of children, or to see one strapped to an electric chair. However, that doesn't ameliorate the fact that someone's right to live was violated. To whom does the state have an obligation? If the state's only job is to protect the rights of its citizens, then it must prosecute the child as it would prosecute anyone who has so violated another's rights. What rights does the child have that the state is obligated to protect? Certainly he has the same right to live and not have force initiated upon him. But he initiated the force. Does he have the right to be given a break because of his age; because of his mental acuity? Well then, do we all get a break because of our age or mental acuity? Can I claim irrationality as a defense? When I start going senile in my old age, put on my clown suit, scale the clock tower with my AK-47 and start taking people out, can I claim age as a defense? It seems to me the answer to these questions must be, "No." If irrationality is a defense then all initiation of force is grounds for leniency since all initiation of force is irrational. I understand this is an off-the-cuff response, but it still bothers me. My understanding of the Objectivist position on rights is that they follow from the nature of man; that they are negative rights in that they require no one to act in order for them to exist. They are not extended as a courtesy. Neither children, retarded people, nor full grown men are entitled to be protected. To assert they are begs the question, "Protected by whom?" Who would then be required to act in order to grant this right to protection? If we grant that all men have the right to be protected, then we open up all sorts of avenues into state control: the government must protect you, so we'll stop you from eating salt; the government must protect you, so we'll force you to go to the doctor; ad infinitum. Bringing this back to the question, a child playing with a gun has no right, no claim on any other's actions, to ensure that child does not fire the gun and kill someone else. The child has no claim on any other's actions to protect him from his own irrationality. As his parent, it would probably be in my rational self-interest to make sure the child isn't in the position for this ever to occur. However, I'm not obligated to do so. Likewise, the government has no obligation to the child to protect him from his own irrationality, nor from the consequences of his irrationality. The government has an obligation to protect the rights of those whom the child would shoot.
  11. I think "recognizing some rights" would be better. So then the question is: What rights of the retarded/insane/irrational/etc. should we recognize? But that seems to beg the question: What objective principle allows us to make that determination? Where do we get the right to determine which rights of these individuals we can ignore? That was my point. How do we define "retarded/insane?" I think it's fairly safe to assume the spectrum is very wide. Legally, that would mean something like, "If you get a 0% on this aptitude test, then the government will recognize these rights, but not these rights. If you score a 10% on this aptitude test, then the government will recognize these rights, but not these rights... etc." But then, that doesn't mesh with your answer that irrational individuals don't deserve extra protection. If an irrational person doesn't deserve extra protection, then presumably a rational person doesn't deserve extra protection. If a rational person doesn't deserve extra protecton, then what rights of the rational individual would the government recognize that it would not recognize in the irrational person? If the person is severely retarded, do they warrant extra protection from the government? If so, and if the government's only job is to protect rights, then what extra rights does the severely retarded person have that warrants that extra protection? I haven't ever dealt with a severely insane person, but I'm also not arguing that such a person has the ability to look out for himself. I'm questioning whether you're arguing government has some special obligation to these people. Whether the government recognizes special rights for them, or whether the government does not recognize certain rights for them that it would recognize in others. If insanity imparts or abriges certain rights, then what else imparts or abriges certain rights? Can being a different color than most people impart or abrige certain rights? If not, what makes the two different? Certainly, insanity exists - and it has a very wide spectrum, which further confounds the issue. I'm questioning what principle directs the law to take special cognizance of someone's insanity. In other words, can the law state: If you're insane, you have different rights, and are entitled to different protections than a sane person. Suppose an insane person kills my family - does he get special consideration because he's insane? Suppose the insane person has no family, or friends, who is his guardian? Must the state then step in as his guardian so as to protect his rights? What if no one in society wants to deal with this insane person, do rights still apply if living in society becomes an impossibility?
  12. This line of thought troubles me. Syntax like: "should they at least have some rights...," or, "... allowing them some limited rights... a courtesy extended to them for being human..." imply rights are conferred rather than following from the nature of rights bearing entities. Since I'm positive you mean the latter, and not the former, I'm confused. Why would a retarded person not have the right to sign a contract? As you pointed out so clearly in your penultimate post, we need to start at the reality of the situation at hand. If I deem a particular retarded person capable of fulfilling a contract, why should I not sign one with him? Why would the government step in to prevent him from signing the contract? Assuming the government did not allow the retarded person to sign the contract, and he subsequently violated the contract, shouldn't the government step in to protect my rights? Likewise, if I breached the contract, shouldn't the government step in to protect the retarded person's rights? Again, this seems to me to be the beginning of an argument that some have rights different from others dependent upon what "we" choose to confer upon them. What special qualities of the insane require protections not afforded to the sane? If a particular individual is not rational, does he deserve extra protection? Does he deserve special consideration from the government?
  13. Why can't the school take pictures of the student? If the student is aware, or has been informed, that such technology exists on the computer, and can be turned on without any warning, then the student agrees to such intrusion when he/she takes the computer. I would say, "Yes." Why could they not? It is their property. Now, in an Objective society, with an Objective government, we'd have several different companies providing phone service (we already do, really), and they might advertise that they would never allow anyone to wire tap your phone. If your phone company doesn't guarantee wire-tap-free service, then choose another provider. Just because we are customers doesn't mean we get to decide what a business can do with its property. Why? I don't know all the facts, but if the district is forcing students to take these laptops, then I would agree. However, if they're not forced to take them, or have them, then I don't see why the district should be any less entitled to its rights to use its property. (Now, I realize that sounds collective, but as you said, we taxpayers are actually paying for these laptops. So, in reality, I have a right to use my property how I see fit.) That's all I'm arguing. I only meant that the exchange of value isn't as clear as in the case of my hypothetical where I owned a laptop rental store and someone rented a laptop from me.
  14. There must be some nuance to your argument that I'm missing, sNerd. Suppose I rent laptop computers. On the rental agreement I state something to the effect of, "Software and hardware technologies are installed on this computer to aid in its retrieval should the machine be stolen. In addition, this software and hardware may be used at the owner's (my) discretion to ensure this computer is not used in any illegal activities." Are you arguing I wouldn't be able to use the laptop's camera to determine where the computer is, or how it is being used? I'm not arguing the students knew about the district's ability to do this, though I would be really surprised if the district's lawyers didn't see this coming from a mile away and wrote it into some kind of agreement signed by the parents. If they didn't, then I think a fraud argument could certainly be made (the district represented the laptops as something other than what they really were). My only argument is that the laptop is the property of the district, and it can do whatever it wants with its property. These students have no rights to laptops which abrogate the rights of the laptops' owner. Especially in this case where the students aren't even exchanging value for the laptops. What about desktop computers in an office? Should the owner of the business, who owns the computers, be allowed to monitor what his employees are doing with his computers? Does it change anything if the employees are allowed to take the computers home? Does the owner's right to monitor what his employees are doing with his computers go by the wayside if they take them home?
  15. Since the laptops belong to the school district, can't they do whatever they want with them?
  16. Brought tears to my eyes. As KurtColville just wrote, you could hear how proud she was of her individual effort. She worked hard for something she really wanted, and now has earned, and deserves to enjoy, the fruits of her labor. I don't know if it's just me, or it's this Olympics, but I'm hearing a lot more of that type of sentiment; athletes mentioning how hard they've worked rather than how lucky they were. The commentators are actually getting in on the act and pointing out how hard these individuals work and the struggles and strife they must go through - the time away from family, the long hours, the constant competition, the constant pressure to perform and succeed with the stress of not knowing whether you will. No one would ever dream of taking away Ms. Vonn's medal, or even taking a little piece of it. Yet the same hard work, struggles and strife are endured by millions of productive individuals who compete in the Reality Olympics every day. Sometimes earning gold, sometimes silver, sometimes nothing at all. Few will be interviewed, fewer still get medals for their accomplishments. Yet most can count on someone taking part of their metal away.
  17. I'm in the middle of this game right now, and I'm quite disappointed. The game play is fine (though incredibly difficult on the "hard" level), the graphics are good, the voice acting is good, and the plot is fairly solid - giving a little more information into the world of Rapture and what went wrong. What I'm really disappointed in is the mischaracterization of Objectivism. Once again it gets equated with hedonism. Andrew Ryan is not portrayed as a successful business man who wanted to establish a "Galt's Gulch" under the sea. He's portrayed as a dictatorial, whim-worshipping hedonist willing to do whatever it takes to get a buck. Unfortunately, the connection to Objectivism is made very clear. There are several references to Objectivist "code words," like "parasite," "moocher," "producers," "individual," etc. Words that people typically equate to Objectivism (at least I do). There is dialogue that gets it right, followed immediately by dialogue which distorts the correct interpretation all to hell. I'm sorry I can't come up with specific examples right now, but I think anyone familiar with Objectivism would quickly and clearly understand my meaning when they play the game. Those with only a passing understanding of Objectivism would just have their misconceptions confirmed, and those with no understanding of Objectivism would be completely misled. I hope some Objectivist game reviewer will publish a review which makes clear how divorced from Objectivism this game actually is. The association with Objectivism needs to stop. As a game, it works - it's fun to play. As a story, it does not. It's extremely frustrating to hear (and read) how the game developer has so completely bastardized what is the greatest advance to philosophy in the past 200 years.
  18. I don't know anything about the Pebble mine, but it seems to me that safeguards could be put in place by the companies wishing to develop it that would prevent any harm to downstream concerns. Bristol Bay fisheries, and anyone so affected, should be allowed to sue for any demonstrable damages caused by the development.
  19. JeffS

    Guantanamo Bay

    No, it's fact; evidenced by the fact that only one post appears after the point was made, and that post doesn't address the point. Fine with me.
  20. JeffS

    Guantanamo Bay

    And yet my point wasn't addressed there. Many of the people detained at Gitmo are there simply because they were found in Afghanistan or Iraq and someone thought they should be taken in. Since this all started, some 250 of the approximately 750 detainees have been released and repatriated. Once there they were released due to lack of evidence of any crime. Currently, the DoD has segregated some 60 or 70 of the 162 detainees because the DoD believes there's not enough evidence to prove they are enemy combatants and should be repatriated. Being on a battlefield is not objective evidence of waging war. Wearing a turban is not objective evidence of waging war. Being a Muslim is not objective evidence of waging war. Being a citizen of a particular country is not objective evidence of waging war - especially in this case since no nation is at war with us. You're passing judgement upon these people without any objective evidence. You're assuming they are enemy combatants. Yes, an enemy captured on the battlefield is not innocent. But you neither know if these individuals are enemies - since the only way of objectively determining that in this war would be if they're shooting at our soldiers, nor do you know if they were captured on the battlefield - unless you want to designate an entire country, which is not at war with us, as the battlefield. Suppose you are a soldier. You see a guy walking through the mountains of Afghanistan with a gun slung over his back. Does he have any rights?
  21. You put the emphasis on the wrong word. The appropriate word to emphasize would be "might." One could argue whether the FDA actually "might" make sure a company isn't doing any harm. But the history of the FDA is replete with approved food and drugs that went on to kill, or harm, tens of thousands of people. Furthermore, David Odden's reply holds an interesting aside: If regulation were the answer to protecting people, then how does the most heavily regulated market on the planet put out proportionately more dangerous products than all relatively free markets combined?
  22. That wouldn't be extra-terrestrial. Those dishes point toward the Earth. To pick up extra-terrestrial radio signals, you'd need something pointing away from the Earth. Like: .
  23. What are liberals listening to, extra-terrestrial radio? Guess that explains this: Air America Radio Closes Not much listener-ship for people with their heads in the clouds, much less above them.
  24. Exactly. If we're as connected to each other and the planet as Cameron seems to believe, then why does he need not just fiction, but fantastical fiction in order to make the point? 'Scuse me while I hook up to my dog, since I'm sure he has some important thoughts on this matter.
×
×
  • Create New...