Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Proper government is violating rights

Rate this topic


brian0918

Recommended Posts

Man by his nature is the rational animal, so a man must use his reason in order to live his life. Rights are a moral concept derived from this understating of man's nature and is basically the social recognition of man's need to think for himself and to act accordingly. In other words, it places society under the auspices of the rational man, saying that society or other men do not have the moral authority to run a man's mind or life for him. So, by his nature, there are certain basic requirements of a man living his life, and being free from the initiation of force or fraud is the most basic social requirement.

See Man's rights in the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how about the manner in which government is funded? The wall I run into in this kind of argument is that it's "impossible" to have a voluntarily funded government, that it's somehow a contradiction in terms.

It's like arguing that nobody would voluntarily join the military, thus we need a compulsory draft system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

It's basically up to the individual to understand where his rights come from, and to morally assert them against others or society, when necessary. This includes setting up a government that will protect his rights. In short, they come from the individual living his own life, though he can organize other men who agree with him to defend his rights. A proper government is one in which individual rights are protected, but this must be assured by each individual in that society (an informed citizenry to use the Founding Father's expression).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im getting a bit confused, whether there are two meanings of the word "right".

In VoS, Rand writes:

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life.

The first sentence makes no distinction between whether these rights are good or bad, it simply states that it defines and sanctions a man's freedom of action. This is how i define rights as well. The second sentence explains what that right should morally be.

Rand also says:

Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.

If she thought that all men "have" rights, she would have said "...the man whose right to the product of his effort wasnt protected, has no means....." but she uses the phrase "the man who has no right".

Yet, she also says:

Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

Here she uses the word right, in the sense A.B used it. That men "have" rights on the basis of their identity.

In "Textbook of Americanism" she says:

A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.

If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.

If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.

Here again, she uses two different meanings. She says that a man has no right to his own life, if the government can violate it. She doesnt say "If you exist only because society permits you to exist—youre right to your own life is being violated." She says, "you have no right to your own life"

If someone, who actually knows what they are talking about and not just "guessing", could clarify this to me, id be pleased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im getting a bit confused, whether there are two meanings of the word "right".

In VoS, Rand writes:

The first sentence makes no distinction between whether these rights are good or bad, it simply states that it defines and sanctions a man's freedom of action. This is how i define rights as well. The second sentence explains what that right should morally be.

If she thought that all men "have" rights, she would have said "...the man whose right to the product of his effort wasnt protected, has no means....." but she uses the phrase "the man who has no right".

Here again, she uses two different meanings. She says that a man has no right to his own life, if the government can violate it. She doesnt say "If you exist only because society permits you to exist—youre right to your own life is being violated." She says, "you have no right to your own life"

If someone, who actually knows what they are talking about and not just "guessing", could clarify this to me, id be pleased.

I can clarify.

She doesn't use two different meanings. She just doesn't pay attention to that little subtle difference because rights are so obviously just a freedom to action, they aren't an actual thing like a piece of cheese would be. "Someone took away" my rights just means someone prevented me from acting on them. Since it is so clear that no one can physically take them, put them in the trunk and drive away, she probably just didn't bother to not use that figure of speech, because she didn't expect people to get hung up on that.

Obviously, rights are a freedom to action rather than the right to something else. We "have them" just means we have the capacity to exercise them( we are rational), and "to take them away" just means preventing someone from exercising them, not actually removing them from someone's head or body.

Don't take "to have" to mean "to hold", and "to take away" literally, since rights are obviously not something you can handle and move, let alone "keep in a box" or "take away".

This isn't part of my answer to the question, just an unrelated clarification:

Here again, she uses two different meanings. She says that a man has no right to his own life, if the government can violate it.

That's not what she says in the quote. She says that if you only exist by permission (like in a tyranny) you don't have your right to life (again, that just means you're not free). She doesn't mean that in a somewhat free country, where government could violate your rights, but probably won't, you don't have a right to life. In the US, you still have to act to preserve and improve your life: to that extent you are free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's basically up to the individual to understand where his rights come from, and to morally assert them against others or society, when necessary. This includes setting up a government that will protect his rights. In short, they come from the individual living his own life, though he can organize other men who agree with him to defend his rights. A proper government is one in which individual rights are protected, but this must be assured by each individual in that society (an informed citizenry to use the Founding Father's expression).

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Every human being has the moral authority to assert his rights regardless of where they are. To give an example, you have the right to your computer, even though it is possible for someone to take that computer away from you. Similarly, yes, even those people in North Korea have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, since they are human; however, their government does not permit the enactment of those rights (they use force against those who choose to be rational). In other words, every human being has the right to enact the Objectivist virtues, even though someone might initiate force against them and assert the opposite.

As I've said, it is up to the individual or his representatives to morally assert his rights, but this does not mean that force will not be used against him, negating those rights, only that he has the moral authority to act and live based on his own best judgment so long as he doesn't initiate force. To put it another way, any moral man would have the authority to overthrow the North Korean government and enact a state that recognizes individual rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the moral authority that Thomas is talking about is derived from what it takes to live on this planet as a rational being.

In order to live as a man you must be able to rationally pursue goals and values. Without exerting your right to life you can not live as a man, however it is possible for you to exist as something less than that ideal when your right is curtailed by force.

In order to pursue your life you must have liberty, the freedom to choose. You must be able to use your mind, employing logic, reason and intellect, free of the threat of force or fraud. But again it is possible for you to exist at a reduced state of liberty, but that means that you are unable to act on your own and for your own reasons at all times.

Living and having liberty leads to creation and achievement which culminates in property, both physical and intellectual. You own that which you possess, that which you create. The products of your mind (which all property is derived from) are yours, no one can take your thought but they are able to take the things you produce, the values you purchase through your productive effort.

When the tribe, religion, government or whatever tells you that you can't do "X", "Y" or "Z" in spite of the fact that doing it does not initiate force then they are limiting your right to life. When they tell you that you can't act as you wish because they have a prohibition against it they are curtailing your liberty. When they take the product of your labour or mind they are robbing you of property...

All of these things are done to each and every one of us every day. The fact that we are still able to exist in spite of it is not an indication that there is nothing wrong.

The human body can live with a disease for many years, perhaps indefinitely but that does not make the diseased state the natural state for the human body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every human being has the moral authority to assert his rights regardless of where they are. To give an example, you have the right to your computer, even though it is possible for someone to take that computer away from you. Similarly, yes, even those people in North Korea have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, since they are human; however, their government does not permit the enactment of those rights (they use force against those who choose to be rational). In other words, every human being has the right to enact the Objectivist virtues, even though someone might initiate force against them and assert the opposite.

As I've said, it is up to the individual or his representatives to morally assert his rights, but this does not mean that force will not be used against him, negating those rights, only that he has the moral authority to act and live based on his own best judgment so long as he doesn't initiate force. To put it another way, any moral man would have the authority to overthrow the North Korean government and enact a state that recognizes individual rights.

Okay, that's how I understood it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...