Your thoughts on my view of rights?

[Joynewyeary]

From the thread about privacy:

(1) Suppose I am rich and I hate a particular person, but that person doesn't know that.  I invite the person to my home for a discussion about The Satanic Verses.  Hidden cameras record the person praising the book.  I find television programs that have large Muslim audiences.  I pay for the recording to be broadcast again and again and again during those programs.

If the person recorded was not given any assurances that his voice [and video image] would not be recorded, he has no case against the surreptitious recordist.

I guess that "not given any assurances" means "there was no contract." However, how do we conclude from this that there was no rights violation? We might try to rely upon some premise such as the following.

RIGHTS PREMISE:

The only rights that anyone has are:

A. a right to not have force initiated against one

B. a right to not be defrauded

C. a right to have others comply with their contractual obligations

Now, two related questions arise.

(1) What support is there for the claim that those are the only rights that anyone has?

(2) What exactly is meant by a right to not have force initiated against one and a right to not be defrauded?

The second question is very important because we have no reason to believe that some given support for the RIGHTS PREMISE is strong or valid support regardless of the meaning of the RIGHTS PREMISE.

I can't think of a way of emphasizing the significance of this point without insulting a lot of people, so I will simply repeat the statement.

The second question is very important because we have no reason to believe that some given support for the RIGHTS PREMISE is strong or valid support regardless of the meaning of the RIGHTS PREMISE.

If you cannot understand what that means, then please indicate specifically what part of that statement is creating difficulties for you.

[JMeganSnow]

RIGHTS PREMISE:

The only rights that anyone has are:

A. a right to not have force initiated against one

B. a right to not be defrauded

C. a right to have others comply with their contractual obligations

Um, these are not the only rights anyone has. In fact, these are not primary rights, they are derivative rights (C is not actually a right). The primary rights are (drum roll):

LIFE

LIBERTY

PROPERTY (sometimes called Pursuit of Happiness, but it's really Property)

The reason no one can have the right to initiate the use of force against you is that it violates one or more of your rights. Ditto for being defrauded (which is a type of initiation of the use of force).

You don't have a right to demand that others comply with their contractual obligations. That would actually constitute an initiation of force against them. It may appear on the surface that you have a right to do so, but that isn't precisely how it works. Suits for breach of contract don't demand that the contract be fulfilled as specified; they demand that adjustments/reparations be made for the damages incurred by the failure of the contract.

Now, taking the revised list of rights and the way they are implemented under our legal system, one's opinions, even if stated in public, are one's own property. SO, someone recording you without your express permission and then distributing that recording has violated your right to dispose of your property (that property, in this case, being your opinions) in the way in which you choose. You are entitled to claim damages against that person. The damages become even more apparent if that person uses their recording in such a manner as to threaten your life.

There are all kinds of complicated shadings and nuances in these cases, which is why adjudicating the law requires so much study and effort. But, in general, it is not permissable to record someone without their permission.

[y_feldblum]

Perhaps you should read a little of Ayn Rand's writings on politics.

[Joynewyeary]

You don't have a right to demand that others comply with their contractual obligations. 

To demand would be to merely communicate, but I didn't say anything about demanding. I referred to "a right to have others comply with their contractual obligations." You can ask what remedy there is if someone violates that right.

Suppose you have a new car. Suppose I steal it and damage it so severely that it would be more expensive to repair it than to replace it. Suppose a judge decides that I am not required to pay for your damaged car to be repaired. Suppose the judge orders me to buy you a brand new car of the same make and model. Would you argue, before I steal your car, that you do not have a right to that particular car, but that you simply have a right to own a new car of the same make and model?

Now, taking the revised list of rights and the way they are implemented under our legal system [...]

There are all kinds of complicated shadings and nuances in these cases, which is why adjudicating the law requires so much study and effort.  But, in general, it is not permissable to record someone without their permission.

The topic of this discussion is supposed to be the Objectivist philosophy of law. The topic is not a currently implemented legal system, unless you are posting your message from Galt's Gulch.

Edited May 8, 2005 by Joynewyeary

[JMeganSnow]

Suppose you have a new car.  Suppose I steal it and damage it so severely that it would be more expensive to repair it than to replace it.  Suppose a judge decides that I am not required to pay for your damaged car to be repaired.  Suppose the  judge orders me to buy you a brand new car of the same make and model.  Would you argue, before I steal your car, that you do not have a right to that particular car, but that you simply have a right to own a new car of the same make and model?

Argument-by-example. You are ignoring the metaphysical changes that have taken place that dictate my right has changed from my ownership of my particular car; the fact that my particular car is no longer in a state to be of any use to me. The thing that makes a car a value is what you can use it for. If I do not have my car replaced then you have STILL deprived me, by violating my rights, of a value that belonged to me. That is why the judge is correct in asserting that I have the right to a different car at this time.

Prior to your felonious actions, my right extended only to my particular car because it was a value. If it was undamaged by your joy-ride, it would remain a value and my right would still only pertain to that particular car.

The topic of this discussion is not law, but the Objectivist philosophy of law.

You are asking what Objectivists think about particular applications of the law. The Objectivist philosophy of law simply states that people have rights and that no one may act to violate them. That's it. Anything more than that and you have moved outside the realm of philosophy into the realm of applications, where the ACTUAL law, the one that exists in reality, comes into play. So, in this case there is no reason to make this distinction. Much of the law in this country does function as Objectivists would like; it is perfectly rational to reference it.

[Joynewyeary]

The Objectivist philosophy of law simply states that people have rights and that no one may act to violate them.  That's it.  Anything more than that and you have moved outside the realm of philosophy into the realm of applications [...]

Are there Catholic Objectivists who agree that people have rights and that no one may violate them, but who think that no one has the right to manufacture, sell, buy, or use contraceptives?

[EC]

Are there Catholic Objectivists who agree that people have rights and that no one may violate them, but who think that no one has the right to manufacture, sell, buy, or use contraceptives?

Since an Objectivist must be an atheist, there is no such thing as a "Catholic Objectivist".

[Joynewyeary]

Since an Objectivist must be an atheist, there is no such thing as a "Catholic Objectivist".

So take out the word "Catholic". Also, we can make it a question about the nature of Objectivism rather than the nature of Objectivists.

Can someone who agrees that people have rights and that no one may violate them -- but who thinks that no one has the right to manufacture, sell, buy, or use contraceptives -- be an Objectivist?

Opposition to contraception is conventionally "explained" by saying that the person who opposes it is Catholic.

Nut: "I eat two walnuts every Sunday."

Normal Person: "Why?"

Nut: "Because not only do I eat two walnuts every Sunday, but I also eat two filberts every Monday, two cashews every Tuesday, two almonds every Wednesday, two peanuts every Thursday, two pistachios every Friday, and two pecans every Saturday."

Normal Person: "Well, you not only failed to answer my question, but you also told me about other practices that require an explanation."

Nut: "I am a two-nutologist."

Normal Person:

[Joynewyeary]

You don't have a right to [have others] comply with their contractual obligations.  [...] It may appear on the surface that you have a right to do so, but that isn't precisely how it works.  Suits for breach of contract don't demand that the contract be fulfilled as specified; they demand that adjustments/reparations be made for the damages incurred by the failure of the contract. 

If there is no such thing as a contractual right--i.e. a right held by virtue of a contractual agreement--then why should courts take any interest in a breach of contract? If breach of contract is not a violation of rights, then why do courts treat it differently from, for example, breach of etiquette?

You begin by saying, if I understand you correctly, that when a party breaches a contract, the injured party doesn't necessarily seek, as a remedy for the breach, the fulfillment of the contract. Okay. Now, how are you going to derive the conclusion that a breach of contract is not a violation of rights?

[Toolboxnj]

Can someone who agrees that people have rights and that no one may violate them -- but who thinks that no one has the right to manufacture, sell, buy, or use contraceptives -- be an Objectivist?

I don't quite understand the question. An Objectivist wouldn't be against the purchase, usage or manufacture of contraceptives.

Would you be referring to a Catholic that refuses to dispense such drugs? I couldn't speak for them, but if you go to a pharmacist that will not dispence a drug that you need for your well-being with a doctors' prescription you'd better find another to do business with.

[Joynewyeary]

I don't quite understand the question.  An Objectivist wouldn't be against the purchase, usage or manufacture of contraceptives.

The question that you don't quite understand was asked in response to this:

The Objectivist philosophy of law simply states that people have rights and that no one may act to violate them.  That's it.  Anything more than that and you have moved outside the realm of philosophy into the realm of applications, where the ACTUAL law, the one that exists in reality, comes into play. 

The question for you is: what rights do people have?

[JMeganSnow]

If there is no such thing as a contractual right--i.e. a right held by virtue of a contractual agreement--then why should courts take any interest in a breach of contract?  If breach of contract is not a violation of rights, then why do courts treat it differently from, for example, breach of etiquette?

You begin by saying, if I understand you correctly, that when a party breaches a contract, the injured party doesn't necessarily seek, as a remedy for the breach, the fulfillment of the contract.  Okay.  Now, how are you going to derive the conclusion that a breach of contract is not a violation of rights?

A breach of contract can be a violation of rights, but it is not necessarily a violation of rights. In fact, a breach of contract may be the only method whereby one can exercise one's rights. The courts are interested in those cases where a violation of rights has happened or may happen; their function is to permit the parties involved to come to an equitable solution or to discover what that equitable solution may be.

An example of a situation where intentionally breaching a contract is an exercise of one's rights: divorce. If the courts were to mandate that the original contractual obligation (the marriage) were carried out as is, they would be violating the divorce-seeker's right to liberty. However, the courts CAN demand that some suitable reparations be made for the breach of contract if it is required by the situation. Pre-nuptual agreements frequently have provisions for alimony payments or division of goods in the case of a breach of contract.

[JMeganSnow]

The question for you is: what rights do people have?

As I said above:

LIFE

LIBERTY

PROPERTY

[EC]

The question for you is: what rights do people have?

The right to not have coersive force of any type initiated against them.

[gags]

The right to not have coersive force of any type initiated against them.

Isn't that simply an extension of the right to life?

[LauricAcid]

If one has a right not to have force initiated against one, then does it not follow that people have a duty not to intitiate force? But some people take exception to saying that one has a moral duty not to initiate force. Why? What are the differences among:

(1) One should not do what is immoral.

(2) One ought not do what is immoral.

(3) One has a duty not to do what is immoral.

[Joynewyeary]

You are asking what Objectivists think about particular applications of the law.  The Objectivist philosophy of law simply states that people have rights and that no one may act to violate them.  That's it.  Anything more than that and you have moved outside the realm of philosophy into the realm of applications, where the ACTUAL law, the one that exists in reality, comes into play.  So, in this case there is no reason to make this distinction.  Much of the law in this country does function as Objectivists would like; it is perfectly rational to reference it.

What about the possibility that there are some laws that function as Objectivists would like and as all civilized people would like even though those laws are actually inconsistent with Objectivism?

Does the Objectivist theory of rights actually provide a complete basis for a just legal system or is it just a tool that Objectivists use to complain about particular laws that they happen to dislike?

[JMeganSnow]

It would be most correct to say that one has a moral responsibility not to initiate force against other people. Moral actions are chosen, and I think any huffiness about "duty" come from Kantian definitions of duty where duty is somehow exempted from choice. You HAVE to do your duty, according to Kant, in fact, if you CHOOSE to do it, it's not moral any longer!

He's a nut, btw.

Objectivists very pointedly remind people that there is no such thing as a moral commandment; the moral is the chosen.