The Rights of Men

[sanjavalen]

In today's world we hear endlessly about rights. Of our rights that are violated, of what our rights ought or ought not consist of, and over who will best defend them. Yet there is little talk - a brief statement of belief, if anything - as to the nature of rights, of where they come from and why we need them.

What is a right? A right is an agreement within a society that every individual has a legitimate, moral claim - thus, a "right" - to something. From the right to free speech to the right to government funded healthcare, what rights man has been debated endlessly.

How much freedom was contained in each man's rights has waxed and waned throughout the centuries, but in the west, even in its darkest times, the question has largely been one of "what rights does man have?" instead of starting at the root question of it all, "ought men have rights?" The answer to that question - and the subsequent "Why?" - would lead you down a logical path that would easily answer what rights men had. If the answer to this first and all-important question is "yes", the reasoning is correct, and the logic of applying it is sound, then the set of rights this system produces should be clear and easy to apply to the world.

Today's popular theories on rights (such as they are) are simply two varients on the same theme. With them come the same fundamental problems, and the same holes which remain unaddressed. But these cannot simply be ignored in favor of just having some justification of rights and then moving on. An improper premise destroys that which it purports to justify. And so they have been used not only to defend rights, but, more and more as time goes on, as justification for the dissolution of rights.

In the USA especially, the religious defend rights on the grounds of faith. Man, they say, is a special creature. When he was created by God, he was endowed with special rights, which men are obligated to recognize - to be in line with God's wishes. They rely on divine revelation to tell them what these wishes are.

Nonsense, the more secular say. Instead, they assert that rights are special privledges granted by the collective to its members, or to some segment of its members. The whims of "the people," not some diety, determine what rights men have.

The common thread of these theories is that it is whim which determines the extent and nature of rights. Who's whim - each equally arbitrary - is the only thing they differ on. Due to the nature of incorrect premises, these principles are now used as justification for the destruction of rights. Religious people think - quite logically - that if rights come from God, and we have rights because God says we do, why not follow His laws in other things as well? So they push for invasive government, paternalistic programs to promote "moral" behavior, and the outlawing of "sinful" practices (prostitution, homosexuality, etc.) The secularists descend into competing pressure groups, looking for their "rights" to be granted to them by the government. As both have progressed, they have gone from justifications for having rights to justifications to, in effect, have no rights. Rights that are subject to change by the whim of the people or can be nullified in the interest of a more moral law, then they do not exist.

Do men, then, need rights at all? Or are they, as some say, quaint constructions, with no basis in reality?

Men, like any beast, has certain requirements for living. Unique to all animals on earth, man's only requirement to live is to be able to use his rational mind. He must be free to act on his own judgment about what course of action is best for him. Therefore, any other person who tries to make him act in contrary to his judgment (through fraud or force) has committed a great evil on the victim, and the victim is morally sound in stopping the act immediately and extracting value to compensate them for any time, effort or resources lost on the fraud or attempted use of force. This is the proper, moral reaction to such acts.

This does not change in a society. What does change is that, in a society, you may have a neutral arbiter of disagreements, and an objective set of laws which will set out the "rules" and allow these moral responses to force and fraud to be institutionalized, regulated and known to all people. These are what your "rights" are - in fact, your one and only right. A rule against anyone causing you to act against your own best judgment, either through fraud or force.

So, yes, man does have rights. He has one right - the right to act on his best judgment, free from coercion of any type from other men. That is the only thing that any man has the right to forbid other men to do - and, thusly, the only thing a moral government can forbid. To do anything more would be to violate this right on other people, and put the person who does this in the same moral category as a bandit.

[Scott_Connery]

This seems quite solid to me. I think one or two sentences on exactly what is and is not coercion would be helpful.

[sanjavalen]

This seems quite solid to me. I think one or two sentences on exactly what is and is not coercion would be helpful.

I thought it was clearly implied that anything which caused you to act against your best judgment as to what is best for you is force or fraud.

[Scott_Connery]

I'm not sure that is a good enough definition. It seems like there is still a gray area. I could see people arguing that ownership of many dangerous items could fit that definition of force.

[sanjavalen]

Then they are stupid.

I mean really, if they're that far gone down the path to loony toon land, there's not much sense in talking to them.

[horvay]

I thought it was clearly implied that anything which caused you to act against your best judgment as to what is best for you is force or fraud.

I think you could clear up that whole ambiguity with just putting "physical force" instead of "force". Though its kinda redundant, just like saying laissez faire capitalism instead of just capitalism.

The only other thing I might add is changing "He has one right - the right to act on his best judgment" to something like "He has one right - the right to life, which means (according to human nature), the right to act on his best judgment."

Though that might add too many concepts to one sentence.

[Scott_Connery]

I'm not saying I agree with the theory. I'm just saying that I think the definition could be tightened up a little.

I think it is arguable both ways (under your "act against your best judgement" rule) that being next door to a chemical weapons plant is a violation of your rights.

It does not seem absurd to me that someone would be fearful of being in such an environment. Especially because knowing if the plant was genuinely safe might require a phd in chemistry.

I think the definition needs to include something more akin to force, explicitly stated threat of force, or gross negligence likely to cause harm.

[sanjavalen]

I'm not saying I agree with the theory. I'm just saying that I think the definition could be tightened up a little.

I think it is arguable both ways (under your "act against your best judgement" rule) that being next door to a chemical weapons plant is a violation of your rights.

It does not seem absurd to me that someone would be fearful of being in such an environment. Especially because knowing if the plant was genuinely safe might require a phd in chemistry.

I think the definition needs to include something more akin to force, explicitly stated threat of force, or gross negligence likely to cause harm.

How does that affect your judgment? Maybe you are right to be scared - but the place being there isn't causing you to act against your best judgment.

[horvay]

I'm not saying I agree with the theory. I'm just saying that I think the definition could be tightened up a little.

I think it is arguable both ways (under your "act against your best judgement" rule) that being next door to a chemical weapons plant is a violation of your rights.

It does not seem absurd to me that someone would be fearful of being in such an environment. Especially because knowing if the plant was genuinely safe might require a phd in chemistry.

I think the definition needs to include something more akin to force, explicitly stated threat of force, or gross negligence likely to cause harm.

The person getting the bad effects could just take the claim to court. When this happens enough, plants would be very careful where they place their structure.

[Scott_Connery]

Well, let us say hypothetically that I bought I house next to a large empty lot. Some years down the road, a company builds a chemical weapons factory there.

Now, my best judgement tells me not to live next to a chemical weapons plant, especially because I don't really know how to guage whether or not it is a safe one.

This does not mean, that I don't think chemical plants should be outlawed, it is just an example that I think points out a gray area in your definition.

Edited April 27, 2008 by Scott_Connery

[sanjavalen]

Well, let us say hypothetically that I bought I house next to a large empty lot. Some years down the road, a company builds a chemical weapons factory there.

Now, my best judgement tells me not to live next to a chemical weapons plant, especially because I don't really know hot guage whether or not it is a safe one.

This does not mean, that I don't think chemical plants should be outlawed, it is just an example that I think points out a gray area in your definition.

So...use your judgment and move?

[Scott_Connery]

But surely many other people have the same judgement, and so they will not want to buy my house. Therefore it will prove impossible to sell at the price it was previously valued at.

[sanjavalen]

But surely many other people have the same judgement, and so they will not want to buy my house. Therefore it will prove impossible to sell at the price it was previously valued at.

Well, no investment is guaranteed to stay at its current price. That'd be like saying your rights are violated when your stocks go down in value.

[Greebo]

Excellent essay. May I have your permission to reproduce it in another political forum in which I participate? With full credit, of course.

[sanjavalen]

Excellent essay. May I have your permission to reproduce it in another political forum in which I participate? With full credit, of course.

Sure, go ahead.

[DavidOdden]

Then they are stupid.

I mean really, if they're that far gone down the path to loony toon land, there's not much sense in talking to them.

Scott is right. You should consider what your purpose is in writing this essay. If you are writing just to people who accept the philosophy of Ayn Rand, then you should shorten this substantially. If on the other hand you are writing to fundamentally rational people who don't have a solid grip on the concept "rights", you must face reality and understand that very many people are equally confused about the concept of "force". You will hear people say that they were "forced" to work a low-paying job, that they were "forced" to pay for medical insurance, that they were "coerced" into working the graveyard shift to keep their job. Were there no such concepts as "psychological coercion", "cultural coercion" and "economic coercion", there would be no unclarity -- fact reality, the word "coercion" isn't used just the way you think it is. Horvay is correct, that adding the word "physical" reminds people as to the true nature of coercion.

[rameshkaimal]

What is a right? A right is an agreement within a society that every individual has a legitimate, moral claim - thus, a "right" - to something. From the right to free speech to the right to government funded healthcare, what rights man has been debated endlessly.

A right, in Ayn Rand's definition, is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context.

To paraphrase from Dr. Peikoff's OPAR, sanctioning here means: within the sphere of action delimited by a rational moral code based on Man's life as the standard, every man is free to act (in society) without the agreement or approval of others, or without interference from them.

So a right does not require anyone's agreement. In other words, Man's born with certain inalienable rights, regardless of whether anyone chooses to recognize them.

Also, a right is not a claim to anything, including specific objects like healthcare, be it government funded or otherwise. Instead, it's a sanction (as described above) to take specific actions and keep the products of those actions.

[JJJJ]

Well, let us say hypothetically that I bought I house next to a large empty lot. Some years down the road, a company builds a chemical weapons factory there.

Now, my best judgement tells me not to live next to a chemical weapons plant, especially because I don't really know how to guage whether or not it is a safe one.

.

.

.

But surely many other people have the same judgement, and so they will not want to buy my house. Therefore it will prove impossible to sell at the price it was previously valued at.

Well, let us say hypotethically that i opened a movie theater near a big residential complex. Some years down the road, the complex is turned into a prison for extremely dangerous prisoners.

Now my best judgement tells me not to run a movie theater near a prison, especially because i don't really know how to guage ?? whether or not it is safe or profitable to have a business near a prison, as noone wants to go to the movies next to a prison and there may be all kinds of shady characters hanging around there who are visiting their "buddies" in jail and the threat of being robbed is quite high.

But surely many other people have the same judgement, and so they will not want to buy my movie theater. Therefore it will prove impossible to sell at the price it was previously valued at.

Even more simpler: If i move to a nice neighborhood in a city, that "some years down the road" turns into a slum full of crime and violence, then according to you the one who moved there when it wasnt a slum, is somehow entitled to demanding the same price he/she paid for the apartment when he/she moved there.

[SpaceChimp007]

But surely many other people have the same judgement, and so they will not want to buy my house. Therefore it will prove impossible to sell at the price it was previously valued at.

Take a look around the country- won't take a chemical plant to bring down value these days!

You must be living in the boonies because there's not a snowball's-chance-in-hell any zoning ordinance would permit that!

In any event, like the other members mentioned earlier, you'll need a better argument than this. . .