AAAJC

Aren't these colleges funded by tax money? Aren't the wealthy supposed to provide money so that these public colleges can meet the so-called "right for education" demanded by the public? And I think we agree on principles - "Granted right is a contradiction in term".

While reading Howard Zinn's "A People's History Of The United States", I found a passage that was quite interesting. Here it is: "Still understanding the complexities, this book will be skeptical of governments and their attempts, through politics and culture, to ensnare ordinary people in a giant web of nationhood pretending to a common interest..... The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you don't listen to it, you will never know what justice is." What I find interesting is his claim in the very last sentence about how we must heed the voice of the poor (not all of them, but some) to truly understand justice. What do you all think?

I believe you are touching on the dividing line between present-day liberals (or altruists) and libertarians: should we set a distinction between government-sponsered rights, which are artificial, and inalienable rights? In The Fountainhead, Dominique Francon defined freedom as a state where one asks nothing of others and one expects nothing from others. Ayn Rand, in my view, defined rights as a means to achieve that freedom. For example, you have a right to worship whatever religion you believe in, you have a right to own private property, and so on. In the Voice of Reason, Ayn Rand wrote, " America's political philosophy was based on man's right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness, which means: on man's right to exist for his own sake." In other words, these rights were inherent to make us "free" - which, I believe, means that every man can exist as an independent-thinking, rational being. Looters, Rand warns, do not live by this principle. Their purpose lies in forcefully turning individuals into sacrificial animals - under the banner of "common good". When a man is tied to another man, when a man's means of existence and subsistence is no longer his but that of his brother, men's freedom vanishes and so does the purpose of our rights. Government today is dominated by looters who want to create this artificial rights: a right to healthcare, a right to be protected from poverty, and so on. All of which are directed towards tying an individual's fate with those of others. Fruit of my effort is no longer mine; I only exist for the sake of my brothers. I have to make sure that my brothers are healthy, I have to make sure that my brothers are getting good education - all at the expense of my own. That's when our freedom simply disappears and our rights turns meaningless. From this respect, I think your example of British students' riot is a perfect illustration of Rand's fear. Look, parents who send their children to private colleges do not use the publicly funded colleges. In fact, they have no stake in paying for those public colleges at all! Yet, they are being forced to pay taxes to make sure that other "needy" students go to public colleges. In other words, there exists a right to education. But according to Rand, that is not a "right" in its truest sense. A right that takes away individual's right to live independently is a pure evil. Necessity is not the right justification for theft. Hope this helps!

Ayn Rand's philosophy of individualism stems not necessarily from her opposition to what you seem to be calling a "group thinking". In the opening chapter of her book Voice of Reason, she states that the United States was founded on the belief that "man is an end in himself." This, however, does not mean that every men has to stand for himself. Armed with reason, men are capable of doing almost anything as long as their actions do not result in violation of rights of others. In fact, a society in which every individual must stand ALONE wouldn't work. Howard Roark, whatever talent he might be endowed with, wouldn't be able to build skyscrapers unless there are those who demand such things. I think of Objectivism as a system where every individual has a freedom to choose: a system where involuntary submission is strictly prohibited. Process of making voluntary decisions does not involve any selfless motives. (Assuming that people are rational) We make those decisions because there is something to be gained for ourselves. I think your black rights movement (Civil Rights Movement, I guess?) is a perfect illustration of her philosophy. It was a voluntary movement where no one was forced to do anything. The movement was a non-coercive movement where everyone acted with the motive of gaining equal rights for themselves. I wish this helps!