Natural rights, borders and deportations

[TruthSeeker946]

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

She did seem to think that, in her view, irrational savages are people who are at such a primitive level that trade and rational interaction is impossible. There are problems with that view, but she was talking in the context of the first Europeans visiting North America, not the reverse where "primitive" people would visit the advanced civilization. And besides, the immigrants you are talking about, no one is thinking of them as primitive savages like tribes in the middle of the Amazon. Rational or not, immigrants south of the border in the US aren't even the kind of people Rand was talking about. 

I think you are underestimating how scathing Rand was for most of humanity in its current state and how widely she used the term "savage".
 

In Collectivized Rights, she speaks of "all forms of tribal savagery, ancient or modern, primitive or 'industrialized'"

She laments the "savage tribes of Asia and Africa" being "granted the sovereign  "right" to slaughter one another in racial conflict" 

She is referring to nation states here, evident by the use of the term sovereign. 

In The Roots of War, referring to prehistoric savagery, she says "this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons" 

In Theory and Practice, she laments the American failure to champion its political system and says: 

"this is what we should have been teaching the world. Instead, we are deluding the ignorant and semi-savage by telling them that no political knowledge is necessary, that our system is only a matter of subjective preference—that any prehistorical form of tribal tyranny, gang rule, and slaughter will do just as well, with our sanction and support. It is thus that we encourage the spectacle of Algerian  workers marching through the streets and shouting the demand: “Work, not blood!”—without knowing what great knowledge and virtue are required to achieve it."

Is she suggesting Algerian workers are semi-savage? It appears so. 
 

In the Anatomy of Compromise, she speaks of "epistemological savages" 

and 

"the “mysterious” power moving the events of the world is the awesome power of men’s principles—which is mysterious only to the “practical” modern savages who were taught to discard it as “impotent.”

Contrasting the US to the rest of the world and criticising the intellectual leaders of today, she says: 

"There is one country—the United States of America—who is not acceptable to them, who must renounce her tradition and, in atonement, must crawl on her knees, begging the savages of five continents to choose a new name for her system, which would obliterate the guilt of her past."

I will leave it there, but I have barely searched all her works with these quotes. 
 

It seems pretty clear she would regard a substantial proportion of Mexicans as semi-savage at the very least, and certainly third world migrants from Asia and Africa. 
 

I find it impossible to believe she would be in favour of open borders in the modern world. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by TruthSeeker946

[human_murda]

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

It seems pretty clear she would regard a substantial proportion of Mexicans as semi-savage at the very least, and certainly third world migrants from Asia and Africa.

I find it impossible to believe she would be in favour of open borders in the modern world.

Fascinating. This is why us third-worlders must invade the West and take what is rightfully ours.

[human_murda]

2 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

She laments the "savage tribes of Asia and Africa" being "granted the sovereign  "right" to slaughter one another in racial conflict"

Not sure what she's referring to.

Compared to the racial conflicts Euro savages had with Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, Jews, Gypsies, Sub Saharan Africans, Indians, Japanese, Chinese etc, were there bigger, non-religious, racial conflicts in Asia? Did China secretly genocide India? Did Saudi Arabia secretly genocide Japan? Did Singapore bomb half the population of the Middle East, like the savage Euros? Maybe she's talking about Israel, but I don't think they can compete with the savage tribes from Europe (correct me if I'm wrong). Israel also had a little "help" from these Euro savages.

Edited June 29, 2023 by human_murda

[Boydstun]

4 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

 

In Counterfeit Individualism, she said: 

"one man cannot claim the moral right to violate the rights of others. If he denies inviolate rights to other men, he cannot claim such rights for himself, he has rejected the base of rights." (Emphasis my own). 

In Man's Rights, Rand describes "rights" as the "logical transition" between the "moral code of a man and the legal code of a society" and that they "protect individual morality in a social context" 

Therefore, it's quite clear that Rand held that a rational mind which recognises the requirements of man's nature and its proper application in a social context is the prerequisite to claim individual rights.

Regarding indigenous Americans, she said: 

"Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights – they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures" – they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using."

So even though they mixed their labour with the land, they still had no right to it because they did not recognise the concept. 
 

Rand frequently referred to irrational humans as "creatures", "savages", and I think she used the term "sub-human" or "semi-human" 

In The Missing Link, she said:

"But the development of a man’s consciousness is volitional: no matter what the innate degree of his intelligence, he must develop it,  he must learn how to use it, he must become a human being by choice."

i.e those that do not, are not human, or at least not fully human. Only human beings can claim rights.

To summarise, it's pretty clear that Rand did not believe that individual rights are automatically granted by one's mere existence. Like any claim to something, there are prerequisites which must be satisfied. In the case of rights, the prerequisites are a sufficiently rational human who recognises the requirements of man qua man and understands and accepts the application of those requirements in a social context. Only then can he claim individual rights for himself. 

Regarding her off the cuff comment about immigration - her only mention of the issue - she is referring to the impact of immigration on living standards. That is wholly different to the impact on rights themselves I.e the basis of a free society. And regarding her last sentence, I am not advocating closing borders, only controlling them. 

Thank you.

Save one, all of those ideas of Rand's are at least partly false. One statement is true. It is made by you, and it is claimed (correctly) for Rand: only human beings have rights (because if authentic, they are moral relationships possible only between autonomous agents).

I'd not take "recognize" as so intellectual and so explicitly articulated as you do here in reading Rand using "recognize" in these right-action contexts. When Rand has passengers on a train killed through wrong conduct of train operators causing an accident, poetic justice is in play, not advocacy of the death penalty for people holding the mistaken views displayed in the minds of those passengers. The chorus of uncharitable readings of this scene notwithstanding (e.g., agree with Rand's philosophy or be sent to the gas chamber by those who do.)

I'd like to reiterate what I said upstream: The people participating at this site have shown themselves to be independent thinkers, paramount for them is what is true and right, and they do not determine the answer by trying to figure out what Rand said on the issue. There are Objectivist-types like that (holding to a "hockshop of authority" contra Rand's counsel; I've encountered a few on Facebook), but they do not write here, at least not in the years I've been here. (I'm not an Objectivist, meaning there is at least one essential of the philosophy I think false, but like most others here, I have intellectual and personal-survival debt to Rand, interest in philosophy, including hers, and significant agreement with her on some issues significant to me.)

The audience Rand indicates she thinks she is addressing in the Galt's Speech of Atlas Shrugged are not fully in agreement with her philosophy therein, because she is the inventor of it and is breaking the news of it. She repeatedly assumes all sorts of good and bad things in the audience of the radio speech, and she holds forth people's wrong bases for those things or only glimpsed correct bases for them, which she tries to diagnose and remedy out in the light. They do not have her philosophy, yet "whatever living moments you have known, were lived by the values of my code." They have and do authentic good without knowing her code.

Rand did not take issue with the act requirement for use of lawful government force. Had she known the specific history behind the removal of the Five Civilized Tribes from the Southeastern United States in the 1830's to Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma), she might have faced up to the complications of such historical developments. Certainly, she should have. And she should have learned more about those land-takings before describing the historical facts behind the takings in the American history more generally. That was a crucial taking and removal of population I knew of from childhood and schooling out there, and I've been amazed how often people growing up in the Northeast don't know a blessed thing about it.* *

Edited June 29, 2023 by Boydstun

[DavidOdden]

6 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

There could be the reasonable assumption that those who cannot positively articulate a rational morality and its social application (i.e rights), pledging loyalty to those principles, can be presumed not to recognise individual rights. The burden of proof would be on them. 
 

But it is a secondary issue. Before it is even considered, one must accept that: 

1. Those that do not recognise rights cannot claim them for themselves. 

2. Blocking the entry of foreigners who do not recognise individual rights is a legitimate function of the government.

It is in the nature of rights that a man may live his life according to his sole judgment, and he is not required to justify his choices to others. The burden of proof therefore lies on the government to prove that a man’s actions constitute initiation of force. The assumption that failure to recite a loyalty oath or take any other symbolic act is proof of initiation of force is entirely unreasonable. As in, by what logic does such non-action constitute initiation of force?

Not only do we not have to accept your two claims, we must reject them. Those who have not fully internalized and accepted the Objectivist ethics still have the legal right to claim the benefits of the Objectivist ethics for themselves, moreover, no claim need be made since a man is free to enter and remain in the country (state, city) to the best of his ability. No man can question this right, any man who attempts to use force against a foreigner for not satisfying his personal criteria for virtue can be properly arrested and punished for initiation of force. Blocking entry of foreigners is not a legitimate function of government, because entering a national territorial jurisdiction is not initiation of force, any more than being in a national territorial jurisdiction is. Your proposal reduces to a perpetual requirement to justify one’s existence to the authorities.

[Doug Morris]

11 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

So even though they mixed their labour with the land, they still had no right to it because they did not recognise the concept. 

How do you know they didn't recognize the concept?

Does this mean that people who don't understand rights very well have no rights?  That sounds to me like a very dangerous view to take.

 

[Doug Morris]

11 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

1. Those that do not recognise rights cannot claim them for themselves. 

Those who actively violate rights forfeit their own to at least some extent.

Those who disagree with the concept of rights still have rights, even if they don't believe it.

Those who don't understand the concept of rights still have rights, even if they don't understand this.

11 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

 

There could be the reasonable assumption that those who cannot positively articulate a rational morality and its social application (i.e rights), pledging loyalty to those principles, can be presumed not to recognise individual rights. The burden of proof would be on them. 

What about children who haven't reached that level of development yet?

****************

Does this mean that socialists have no rights, or at least no property rights?

Does it mean that people who want abortion to be illegal have no rights?

How do we keep this from degenerating into "Anyone who disagrees with me has no rights"?

 

[Boydstun]

Doug, I take TS to be not endorsing such a silly view but to be drawing it as an implication of writings of Rand. This he or she does by putting a purely intellectual sense to Rand's use of the word "recognition," ignoring recognitions implicit in behavior (and with no insinuation that the implicit recognition is something that could be made explicit in the mind of the agent), indeed ignoring the behavior context of these remarks on rights. It is not a square reading of Rand, only a stretching. That is too bad. There are serious criticisms of Rand's theory of rights that have been made and are very worthwhile to judge and perhaps defend Rand or offer improvements on Rand.

On a more serious point, I'd like to dispute the whole idea that anyone loses rights by violating them. That error is by not knowing how the relation rights is constituted by a complex of interpersonal oughts* which so far as I've seen almost no one understands. (I realized the exact constitution sometime in the late 1960's; it is in that link.) Strictly speaking, it is liberties and powers that are restricted when a criminal is penalized. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Boydstun

[Doug Morris]

10 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

I think you are underestimating how scathing Rand was for most of humanity in its current state and how widely she used the term "savage".
 

In Collectivized Rights, she speaks of "all forms of tribal savagery, ancient or modern, primitive or 'industrialized'"

She laments the "savage tribes of Asia and Africa" being "granted the sovereign  "right" to slaughter one another in racial conflict" 

She is referring to nation states here, evident by the use of the term sovereign. 

In The Roots of War, referring to prehistoric savagery, she says "this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons" 

In Theory and Practice, she laments the American failure to champion its political system and says: 

"this is what we should have been teaching the world. Instead, we are deluding the ignorant and semi-savage by telling them that no political knowledge is necessary, that our system is only a matter of subjective preference—that any prehistorical form of tribal tyranny, gang rule, and slaughter will do just as well, with our sanction and support. It is thus that we encourage the spectacle of Algerian  workers marching through the streets and shouting the demand: “Work, not blood!”—without knowing what great knowledge and virtue are required to achieve it."

Is she suggesting Algerian workers are semi-savage? It appears so. 
 

In the Anatomy of Compromise, she speaks of "epistemological savages" 

and 

"the “mysterious” power moving the events of the world is the awesome power of men’s principles—which is mysterious only to the “practical” modern savages who were taught to discard it as “impotent.”

Contrasting the US to the rest of the world and criticising the intellectual leaders of today, she says: 

"There is one country—the United States of America—who is not acceptable to them, who must renounce her tradition and, in atonement, must crawl on her knees, begging the savages of five continents to choose a new name for her system, which would obliterate the guilt of her past."

I will leave it there, but I have barely searched all her works with these quotes. 
 

It seems pretty clear she would regard a substantial proportion of Mexicans as semi-savage at the very least, and certainly third world migrants from Asia and Africa. 
 

I find it impossible to believe she would be in favour of open borders in the modern world. 

According to the criteria you are using, a lot of Americans are savage, or "semi-savage at the very least".  Do they have no rights?  Should they be deported?

 

[human_murda]

19 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

Doug, I take TS to be not endorsing such a silly view but to be drawing it as an implication of writings of Rand.

Yeah, sure:

12 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

And regarding her last sentence, I am not advocating closing borders, only controlling them.

[Boydstun]

 

HM, good point.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Boydstun

[DavidOdden]

There is a very important distinction to be made between Objectivism and Ayn Rand’s views. Objectivism is the philosophical system developed by Ayn Rand, but “Ayn Rand’s views” is an extensional bag of everything that she thought. Too often, in my opinion, people think that Objectivism is whatever she said, rather than being an integrated system of non-contradictory concepts and propositions.

Some of what she thought is part of the system, and one good way to tell is that she wrote it and published it after thinking it over. For example, Atlas Shrugged, or ITOE. Spontaneous answers in response to a Ford Hall Forum question (the homosexuality canard, best reported here) makes clear that her personal reaction is not part of the philosophical system), same with other personal communications such as her reported (positive) view of tiddlywink music and

or her dislike of Mozart or Beethoven, which does not dictate what music an Objectivist should like.

Let’s return to the opening statement, that “Rand suggested that the colonisation of North America was fair play because the inhabitants did not recognise individual rights”. Let’s actually investigate what part of her philosophical system suggests something, and what exactly is suggests or better yet actually says. It’s guaranteed that she never said that it was “fair play”, which is an idiom invented long after her death. Instead of looking for scientific errors where she she said more than she knew, let’s look for any elements of her philosophy that would support a loyalty oath as a requirement for being in a rights-respecting nation.

 

[Eiuol]

On 6/29/2023 at 4:49 AM, TruthSeeker946 said:

It seems pretty clear she would regard a substantial proportion of Mexicans as semi-savage at the very least, and certainly third world migrants from Asia and Africa. 

Savage is not a philosophically precise word. But she is still talking about specific cultures with specific standards and methods of operation. Or lack of standards in this case, in her view. As your quotes show, she characterized different cultures as savage, such that they have no legitimate political claims. As far as concerns about borders, Rand's comments about Native Americans are all we have, most likely against people who said that Europeans "stole" land from the natives. 

But this doesn't at all get into people who are leaving the so-called savage culture into the more advanced culture politically speaking. Whatever she thought, incorrectly, about natives, she may give a completely different evaluation when talking to people seeking out the stronger and more developed country. Being an immigrant herself, almost certainly viewing Russia as savage politically, I don't think she would use the reasoning that "people choosing to leave savage cultures are more likely to be savage themselves". If anything, Rand would say that people choosing to remain within savage cultures are savage themselves. 

What Rand did is classify cultures as savage, whether she did that rightly or wrongly is another question. 

What you seem to be doing is classifying people as savage based on nothing but their country of origin. Maybe Rand would say that many people in Africa are savages when it comes to the way they treat politics and technology, but immigrating to the US or Western Europe for example usually indicates recognizing that there is something better and worthwhile. I think she would recognize this fact too. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Eiuol

[Boydstun]

Eiuol,

Your post reminded me of an episode that occurred in Rand's life in the fall of 1940. Except for the link and the square-bracketed text I added, the following is from Barbara Branden's biographical essay "Who Is Ayn Rand?" (1962), based on interviews of Rand by Mrs. Branden.

Quote

 

[Rand] and her husband offered their services to the New York headquarters of the Willkie Clubs.*  They worked full-time, and without pay. She formed an "intellectual ammunition" bureau, preparing factual and theoretical material for use by Republican speakers and writers. She spoke on street corners, often to vocally hostile crowds [in her heavy Russian accent]. Once, a heckler demanded: "Who are you to talk about America? You're a foreigner!" Calmly, she answered: "That's right. I chose to be an American. What did you do, besides having been born?" The crowd laughed and applauded—and the heckler was silent.

 

* – https://daily.jstor.org/an-untested-businessman-almost-became-president-during-wwii/

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Boydstun

[InfraBeat]

On 6/26/2023 at 3:34 AM, TruthSeeker946 said:

I would suggest that migrants must pledge allegiance to individual rights and the principles of a free society, as must all residents who come of age. 

All residents, including citizens? 

What is the wording of the pledge?

A person has a moral right to move around without being stopped by force. A rights-based view of government is that governments have a rightful role of protecting rights, not a role of using force to prevent exercise of rights, so governments don't have a rightful role of prevent the right of a person to move about without being stopped by force.

On 6/26/2023 at 3:34 AM, TruthSeeker946 said:

And anyone, migrant or domestic born adult, who violates those principles beyond a certain threshold would be eligible for deportation.

What threshold is that? And U.S. citizens would be deported to where?

[InfraBeat]

On 6/26/2023 at 5:36 AM, TruthSeeker946 said:

If the government has a duty to protect individual rights and those who do not recognise individual rights are: 

1. A threat to individual rights 

2. Forfeit their own rights. 

does it not follow that the foreigner loses the right of entry and the government has the right to block entry?

Unwillingness to swear an oath is not in and of itself a threat.

What altogether constitutes a threat?

And if foreigners may be blocked from entry, then citizens could be blocked from re-entry. For that matter, if the basis for exclusion is refusal to swear an oath, then it would be a basis for actions against anyone, even citizens, in the country to be ejected from the country or to have some other measures against them for refusing to swear an oath. 

On 6/28/2023 at 8:10 AM, TruthSeeker946 said:

There are no rights violations against people who do not recognise individual rights according to Rand. 

You believe that if someone (including a citizen) happens to say, "I disagree with the notion of individual rights", or even "I don't have any opinions about individual rights", then that person has no rights? So, in that view, if such a person has no rights, then the government may do whatever they like to that person, and other people may do whatever they like to that person, and children and people who are lacking education about philosophy and rights have no rights and may be treated no better than any other creature having no rights.

On 6/28/2023 at 8:10 AM, TruthSeeker946 said:

Regarding your vagueness point, that problem arises frequently in the application of law. It's so easy to talk about ethical principles, but much harder to draw the lines in law. 

So? That doesn't obviate that what you advocate needs to be made not utterly vague.

On 6/28/2023 at 8:21 AM, TruthSeeker946 said:

Anywhere, it doesn't matter. Pushed beyond the boundary of the country with guns pointed at him. 

What boundary? Mexico? Canada? The territorial waters? Put on a plane? So, if a U.S. citizen at age eighteen refused to swear an oath, then she should be shot and killed if she refuses to step over the border to another country, or get on an airplane, or jump off a ship in international waters. And you think that would be Objectivism in action? 

Edited July 10, 2023 by InfraBeat

[InfraBeat]

On 6/28/2023 at 10:34 AM, TruthSeeker946 said:

Preventing the initiation of physical force includes preemptive action. 

Taking preemptive action against savages even if they have not yet initiated force seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[...] 

It seems extremely unlikely [Rand] would be in favour of open borders and the consequent millions of irrational savages pouring into the country. 

I am using savage in the same way she did i.e an irrational brute who does not recognise individual rights and is willing to use force to achieve his ends. 

Refusing to swear an oath is not a step in initiating physical force. 

"savage: lacking the restraints normal to civilized human beings" [Merriam-Webster]

One could easily be unwilling to swear an oath and still behave within the restraints of normal civilized human beings and not be willing to use force.

On the other hand, one could easily be willing to swear an oath and not behave within the restraints of normal civilized human beings and be willing to use force. Moreover, one could say "phooey to all your talk about individual rights" and still never use force.

On the other hand, if one does use force, then usually the government does not expel the person from the country. Why would we not expel people who do use force but expel a person merely for refusing to swear an oath? Or should every person who uses force be expelled? If someone uses force in the form of stealing a pack of gum, then he should be expelled? Steal a pack of gum, then you get put on an airplane and then, on landing, you get thrown into the middle of nowhere in Somalia?

Rand said what she said about immigration. You presume to claim that she would say otherwise now? 

Edited July 10, 2023 by InfraBeat

[InfraBeat]

On 6/28/2023 at 10:34 AM, TruthSeeker946 said:

Please address Rand's point about people who do not recognise individual rights having no rights themselves.

As mentioned, it is not the case that refusing to swear an oath is a use of force or even a threat to use force. And even if Rand did hold that those who do not recognize rights have no rights, then still that view could be incorrect or even inconsistent with other parts of Objectivism. At best, you'd need to show that that view is entailed by the Objectivist axioms. I'd like to see your demonstration of that.

Edited July 10, 2023 by InfraBeat

[InfraBeat]

On 6/28/2023 at 3:02 PM, DavidOdden said:

The problem is that you [TruthSeeker946] have demonstrated by your words that you do not recognize individual rights, therefore you do not have rights and we can use preemptive physical force against you

Exactly. 

Edited July 10, 2023 by InfraBeat

[InfraBeat]

On 6/26/2023 at 5:36 AM, TruthSeeker946 said:

Pledging allegiance to the principles properly expressed in a constitution. 

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Objectivism holds that promoting the general welfare is not a proper role of government. So an Objectivist could not honestly swear to pledge allegiance to that principle. So, if you consider yourself to be an Objectivist and honest, then, by your own advocacy, you don't have a right to be in the United States. So next up for you (along with how many other oath scofflaws) is a plane ride to anywhere in Somalia where the plane will land just long enough to push you out and then take off back to the good 'ol U S of A without you. Not sure though what happens to your property. I think maybe the law is that you have a week to liquidate it and you bring the cash with you wherever we decide to drop you.

Meanwhile, I'm in big trouble too, since I vehemently oppose that all states, no matter their size in population get the same number of votes in the Senate and that that it is regarded in the Constitution as such a fundamental principle that it is the only thing in the Constitution that the Constitution disallows being changed by amendment.

Edited July 10, 2023 by InfraBeat

[necrovore]

10 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Objectivism holds that promoting the general welfare is not a proper role of government. So an Objectivist could not honestly swear to pledge allegiance to that principle. So, if you consider yourself to be an Objectivist and honest, then, by your own advocacy, you don't have a right to be in the United States.

Actually it seems like it would be the opposite, that the United States consists of savages and Objectivists have the right to conquer them by force

I think what Ayn Rand was getting at was not the notion that "if you are too primitive to understand rights, you don't get any for yourself" -- the real case is more like people who come to understand rights, who explicitly reject them, but who then say, "Since you allegedly respect rights, you should respect mine, even though I don't respect yours (or my own people's). You have to treat me in a civilized manner, because that is your culture, but I don't have to treat you in a civilized manner, because that is my culture." That's the sort of thing she objected to, the double standard, and I think some of the more "primitive" cultures, on encountering civilization, develop that attitude. And so do Socialists and Communists and other dictators. That's the sort of thing that eventually makes self-defense necessary, and self-defense, being a use of force, can sometimes be ugly, and if you take it entirely out of context, it (sometimes) looks just like murder.

Edited July 10, 2023 by necrovore

[InfraBeat]

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

who then say, "Since you allegedly respect rights, you should respect mine, even though I don't respect yours (or my own people's). You have to treat me in a civilized manner, because that is your culture, but I don't have to treat you in a civilized manner, because that is my culture."

Who says that? Examples?

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

That's the sort of thing she objected to, the double standard

That's a charitable reading of what she said, as it does not connect with what she said about native people.

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

I think what Ayn Rand was getting at was not the notion that "if you are too primitive to understand rights, you don't get any for yourself"

Refer to the actual quotes. She didn't seem to recognize much in the way of rights of native people.

Edited July 10, 2023 by InfraBeat

[InfraBeat]

(1) A person has been working a fairly well understood area of land, has built a house on it, and trades the product of his labor. But in his society there is no concept of rights, and he himself has no concept of rights, though people do generally tend not to burn his crops to plant their own, burn his house to build their own, or take what he got in trades. But sometimes they try to do that, so he defends against that, sometimes with help from his neighbors, but still while they don't have a concept of rights.

A group of other people do have a concept of rights, and see that the man doesn't have a concept of rights. So the group takes his land, his home and what he got in trades. The group has acted only within rights? Also, let's add that while this group does recognize the concept of rights, they routinely violate the concept, and much, or even most, of what they claim ownership to was obtained though combinations of conquest, war, plunder, theft, fraud, slavery and subjugation, and from within monarchical governments. And in this state of affairs, much, if not most, of what any individual or government lays claim to was gotten directly by such combinations, or was gotten by inheritance or a chain of inheritances from such combinations, or was gotten in trades with other people who laid claim through such combinations, inheritances or trades.

(2) A group of people have been working in concert on a fairly well understood area of land, have built houses on it, and trade the product of their labor. And there are other such groups. But there is no concept of rights among the groups, though groups generally tend not to burn the crops of other groups to plant their own, burn the houses to build their own, or take what was gotten in the trades. But sometimes they try to do that, so the group defends against that, sometimes with help from other groups, but still while they don't have a concept of rights. And though the group does not have a concept of individual rights, members of the group, whether correctly or not, have used reason, to the best of their ability, to conclude it is in their self-interest to work in concert as, whether correctly or not, they have used reason, to the best of their ability, to conclude that that is best for achieving their human goals of surviving and thriving. 

A group of other people do have a concept of rights, and see that the group doesn't have a concept of rights. So the other group takes the land, the houses and what was gotten in the trades. The group has acted only within rights? Also, let's add that while this group does recognize the concept of rights, they routinely violate the concept, and much, or even most, of what they claim ownership to was obtained though combinations of conquest, war, genocide, plunder, looting, murder, theft, fraud, corruption, slavery and subjugation, and from within monarchical governments. And in this state of affairs, much, if not most, of what any individual or government lays claim to was gotten directly by such combinations, or was gotten by inheritance or a chain of inheritances from such combinations, or was gotten in trades with other people who laid claim through such combinations, inheritances or trades.

(3) A group of people moves among different areas of land, working in concert on the lands, have built temporary houses on them, and trade the product of their labor. And when crops and hunting are seasonally better in another area, the group moves there. And there are other such groups. But there is no concept of rights among the groups, though groups generally tend not to burn the crops of other groups to plant their own, burn the houses to build their own, or take what was gotten in the trades. But sometimes they try to do that, so the group defends against that, sometimes with help from other groups, but still while they don't have a concept of rights. And though the group does not have a concept of individual rights, members of the group, whether correctly or not, have used reason, to the best of their ability, to conclude it is in their self-interest to work in concert as, whether correctly or not, they have used reason, to the best of their ability, to conclude that that is best for achieving their human goals of surviving and thriving. 

A group of other people do have a concept of rights, and see that the group doesn't have a concept of rights. So the other group takes the land the group is currently residing on, the houses and what was gotten in the trades. The group has acted only within rights? Also, let's add that while this group does recognize the concept of rights, they routinely violate the concept, and much, or even most, of what they claim ownership to was obtained though combinations of conquest, war, genocide, plunder, looting, murder, theft, fraud, corruption, slavery and subjugation, and from within monarchical governments. And in this state of affairs, much, if not most, of what any individual or government lays claim to was gotten directly by such combinations, or was gotten by inheritance or a chain of inheritances from such combinations, or was gotten in trades with other people who laid claim through such combinations, inheritances or trades.

(4) A person walks around an area of land that no other person has claimed, perhaps because no other living person has been to that area of land. The person proclaims that that entire area and all its resources are his. To meet the requirement that he invest himself in it, he builds a fence (which could be as flimsy as some sticks in the ground) around it and picks a few flowers or berries in different spots. Now, for all eternity, that land and all its resources are the person's and whoever falls in the chain of inheritors, and no one else may rightfully enter on it or use it in any way without permission of the first person who happened to put a few sticks around it and pick a few flowers or berries from it or whoever is in the chain of inheritances. And this area can be as large as the person can reach to put some sticks in the ground and occasionally pick a flower or a berry. It could be so large that other people can't survive or can only barely survive or survive only in a terribly harsh way, also because so many other large areas have been claimed, even to the extent that to travel without trespassing would require routes not even endurable. This is rights in action?

Edited July 10, 2023 by InfraBeat

[InfraBeat]

On 6/29/2023 at 6:47 AM, Boydstun said:

I'm not an Objectivist, meaning there is at least one essential of the philosophy I think false

What essentials of the philosophy do you consider to be false?

On 6/29/2023 at 6:47 AM, Boydstun said:

significant agreement with her on some issues significant to me

What are the most important of those?

 

[InfraBeat]

On 6/29/2023 at 9:21 AM, DavidOdden said:

It is in the nature of rights that a man may live his life according to his sole judgment, and he is not required to justify his choices to others. The burden of proof therefore lies on the government to prove that a man’s actions constitute initiation of force. The assumption that failure to recite a loyalty oath or take any other symbolic act is proof of initiation of force is entirely unreasonable. As in, by what logic does such non-action constitute initiation of force?

Not only do we not have to accept your two claims, we must reject them. Those who have not fully internalized and accepted the Objectivist ethics still have the legal right to claim the benefits of the Objectivist ethics for themselves, moreover, no claim need be made since a man is free to enter and remain in the country (state, city) to the best of his ability. No man can question this right, any man who attempts to use force against a foreigner for not satisfying his personal criteria for virtue can be properly arrested and punished for initiation of force. Blocking entry of foreigners is not a legitimate function of government, because entering a national territorial jurisdiction is not initiation of force, any more than being in a national territorial jurisdiction is. Your proposal reduces to a perpetual requirement to justify one’s existence to the authorities.

Well said.