PelsJakob

I mentioned the constitution, and said that it doesn't help with a strong constitution if there is no support for it. This should implicate that I am not talking about the underlying principles, but the practical sides of a free society. In other words: Men have rights, but that doesn't matter if a majority of the people doesn't accept this fact. A republic, or a representative democracy, is the primary form of democracy in the modern world, so the same applies to republics. It is only in the U.S. the word "republic" is used in the meaning a representative democracy; in Europe a republic merely means that the head of state, usually a president, is elected.

Democracy is inevitable. It is impossible to have a free society over time without majority support. As such, there is no alternative to democracy, and any political system will have to, to a large degree, work within the boundaries of the democracy, i.e. have the people's support. There is no help in a strong constitution if no-one is there to protect it. However, I like to separate the concept into what I call macro-democracy and micro-democracy. Democracy means that the people rule, so on a macro level this means that the people rule society, while it on a micro level means that the individual rules his own life. A truly free society, and a true democracy, is where the macro-democracy is combined with the micro-democracy, with the latter defining the former. By that, I mean that every individual must be aware of how powerful government intervention is, and according to the principle of micro-democracy, vote to limit the use of it to necessity. This separation implies that we as liberals* support the most extensive democracy, not only in society, but also on an individual level. *) I call myself a liberal because I am in the true meaning of the word, as opposed to what you call liberals in English.

The problem when it comes to translation, is that when a person writes in English, he also thinks in English. A concept which is represented by a word with a clear meaning in one language, may not have the same representation in another language. Like you say, "force" is a good example. You could use "makt" (power) or "vold" (violence), but the meaning of the sentence may change slightly. Another example, is "primacy", which has to be completely rephrased to give any meaning. But this is also a fact the other way around, especially when it comes to double meaning. For instance, if I were to translate this Norwegian poem to English, it would be almost impossible to do so without losing the double meaning in the process: Vi ville ha alt Vi ville ha alt Vi ville ha alt Og vi tok det Vi tok det Vi tok det Med ro Og med ei stor Med ei stor Med ei stor Klype salt However, I think it would be wrong to imply that English in some way is "richer" as a language than Swedish or Norwegian. It is merely a question of being creative and able to make use of the language's grammar and vocabulary. The reason one may think English is richer, is that a Swede will naturally translate from English more often than into English. In that way, English becomes the standard with which Swedish vocabulary is compared to, and not the opposite. Although, if Ayn Rand had written (and thought) in Swedish, I am certain that the English-speaking would have the same problems translating her message as the other way around. Another example of what you're mentioning in the opening post, is the Norwegian expression "å gi skattelettelser", which could be translated literally as "to give tax reductions". This is a widely accepted expression, from the right to the left in Norway. The implication is that the government is actually spending money when it reduces the taxes -- money it could be spending on improving public health care or education instead. It it obvious that fighting the social democratic language is a big part in fighting social democratic politics.

Bruce Bawer, an American living in Norway, mentions the lack of diversity in Norwegian medias in his article, Hating America. It is my impression that the same goes for most other European countries: In Norway the only alternative to the main-stream social-democratic media is newspapers that are even more to the left, for instance Klassekampen («class warfare»), which is a Norwegian communist newspaper. There are commercial alternatives to the public, state-owned, leftist television channels, but these are not much better. As to radio channels, they are to a great degree state-owned and run by the same company that runs the largest TV network—Norsk Rikskringkasting (Norwegian Broadcasting). For both TV and radio networks, you need a license to go on air. These licenses come are often quite restrictive, and in the end, it is up to the Minister of Culture to decide whether a license is to be renewed or not. A few years ago, the country's leading commercial nationwide radio station, P4, was refused a new licence, meaning that they had to change to a network that covers a smaller geographic area. Interestingly enough, polls show that more than tho thirds of Norwegian journalists vote for socialist parties, while the allegedly liberalist (in the European meaning) Fremskrittspartiet (The Progress Party), which got over 22 per cent of the votes in the election in 2005, got only 3 per cent of the votes from the journalists. I do not have extensive knowledge about the media in other European countries, but I have no reason to believe that things are different there. That being said, I do not believe there is any reason to describe the Scandinavian welfare states as socialist dictatorships. Despite the Scandinavian countries' flaws, their citizens are among the most well-off in the world, and their economies are among the freest. See for instance the Index of Economic, where for instance Denmark is listed as the eighth freest economy in the world. The degree of personal freedom is also relatively high compared with many other countries.

They advocate both the decriminalization and use of drugs. By drugs I do not mean substances that are used for their medical value, but rather substances that are used to, as you state it, evade reality. However, I am not saying that drugs that have medical value are not included in the definition of drugs. It is rather a question of what end a person is seeking to fulfil by the use of drugs. The pro-drugs organization in question, supports the use of cannabis as a means of evading reality. I would define 'sanction' as an (implicit or explicit) approval of a moral stance. In this case it would be a implicit approval of the use of cannabis. The question is if the condemnation of the use of drugs in the article will outweigh the guilt-by-association-argument. I do not know how it is other places, but at least here in Norway, people have trouble distinguishing between morals and politics. If you support the decriminalization of drugs, the first «argument» you get is that you are a drug addict. In a rational culture this would not be a problem, but as the culture is not rational, this fact has to be included in the equation. My solution to the problem is to make the article in a larger perspective, where the distinction between morals and politics are explained with drugs as a concrete example. I believe this is a solution which is both morally legitimate and strategically correct. However, I do not have much experience with how politics function in practice, and this is why I would like to hear your views. Are you implying that I know the answer to the question and looking for good reasons to come the opposite conclusion, i.e. accusing me for dishonesty? I believe the answer to the question is that it is morally legitimate as long as one makes it clear that the organization one represent does not sanction the use of drugs, but I am uncertain, partly because of previous experience. This is why I would like to hear other people's view.

I have a matter I would like to discuss. The question is: Is it morally legitimate for a laissez-faire movement (a political party) to co-operate with pro-drugs organizations, and if so, is it strategically smart? By 'co-operation' I here mean for instance to write an article about a laissez-faire approach to decriminaliization of drugs and publish it on the website of an organization which supports the use of cannabis. Certainly it is positive to get attention other places (especially when the party is not very well-known), but on the other hand, such a co-operation could easily be seen as our sanctioning the use of drugs, even though it is stated clearly in the article that the use of drugs is immoral. I realize that it might be difficult to reach a conclusion without knowing more about the organization involved, but I hope that it will still be possible to discuss the question on a more general basis. Any thoughts?

Thank you for all your answers. I believe I have found the error in my thinking, and AisA's perspective was especially helpful in this matter. I believe the error is that I see rights as a legal, rather than a moral, matter. Obviously, rights cannot exist in a legal sense unless the government recognize them, but I now realize that they still can exist in a moral sense. I guess this is what Ayn Rand called «the fallacy of context-dropping».

Thank for your answer, Daniel. This is exactly the reasoning I am not following. As you say: Man needs rights to be able to live in accordance with his nature. However, I still do not see where you go from this to man actually having rights. It is not the argument per se I do not accept; on the contrary, I believe that it is a good argument for rights—but I cannot see how the conclusion from this can be that man actually has rights, rather than the conclusion being that man should have rights. I agree that rights are «conditions of existence required by man for his proper survival», but doesn't this imply merely that if man is to live in a society, he should have rights? I agree. But still, that one formulation is clearer than another, obviously does not imply that this formulation is more correct. My formulation does not, however, imply that rights is a subjective matter, and that it is up to the government's whim whether it should give people rights or not, although I admit that it could be interpreted that way. It is is still objectively correct for the government to uphold and protect the rights of the citizens, no matter if rights are given by nature or by the government. Thank you for the correction.

Although I consider myself an student of Objectivism, I find the argument for rights difficult to grasp fully. I am not certain whether this is because I misunderstand the argument or because I disagree, so I hope someone could help me figure out this. Reading Peikoff's argument for rights in OPAR, I interpret his argument as such: Man is rational, and accordingly should have rights. From this, he concludes that man has rights. For instance, a man has to reason to survive, which leads to the conclusion that man should do exactly that (if life is his moral standard, which it should be). However, I cannot see how it follows that man has rights qua man; I would rather conclude that if man is to live in a prosperous society where the individual is free to control his own destiny, the government should protect him from physical force, i.e. give him rights. Of course, this does not imply that it is up to the government's whim whether it should do this or not; it is objectively right that man has rights. In other words, I reckon the logical conclusion from Peikoff's argument is that man should have rights, rather than that man has rights. I discussed the matter with a friend of mine (an Objectivist), and he has the same view, stating that this is in accordance with Objectivism. It would be interesting to see other Objectivists' view on this matter. Does man have rights given to him by nature, or is it merely a question of how men should organize society in accordance with human nature? (English is not my primary language, so I apologize for any errors in my writing.)