Proper government is violating rights

Political Philosophy
21

In that case why was it wrong for him to murder you ?

Because he initiated force against me.

No, you have the right, it should be respected, but it wasn’t.

Hence, I did not actually “have” that right. Just like the north koreans dont have property rights. They should have, but they dont. Your making it seem like everyone just somehow intrinsically “has” rights. Rights are not metaphysical. The point of rights in Objectivism is not: “We all automatically “have” rights” but instead “in order for men to live free together, these rights should be respected”

No, it advocates that rights should be respected. Upholding the rights (as opposed to respecting them) implies someone’s action. Your rights do not depend on other people’s action.

My rights certainly depends on the fact whether they are upheld or not. The reason not to initiate force against another man is ethical, not political. The reason to advocate punishment of the initiation of force, is political. These are two very different things. The act of me murdering someone belongs in ethics, the act of punishing me for the murder belongs in politics.

That’s true regardless of the system. If you have a huge army to protect you, you will probably not be punished for anything.

Hence, why Objectivist support 1) an objective government, 2) a government monopoly on the use of retaliatory force.

I do understand and I agree with that. But it is also reliant on food being provided.

Not in the same sense. Food is relevant for a man to survive, but not in any way relevant to whether a market is free or not. The enforcement of individual rights is a necessity in order for a market to be called free. If individual rights arent enforced, the market ceases to be free. If food isnt produced/purchased, then food isnt produced/purchased, byt it doesnt have any relevance on whether the market is free or not. You dont seem to understand the distinction, so i’ll illustrate it to you:

A football is a necessity for the sport football to be football. If no football(the ball) exists, the game football doesnt exist, and whatever those 22 guys running around a grassy field are doing, it is not playing football. The football is a necessity for the game football to be football. This is comparable to individual rights in relation to a free market.

Now, the football players also have protective gear, skill, coaches, they exercise etc. but these arent necessities for football to be football. Even if naked, talentless, coachless seriously obese fatties are throwing a football around and adhere to the rules of the game, they are still playing football. It may not be good football, but its football, nevertheless. This is comparable to food/sustinence in relation to a free market.

No, I do not.

And it is not mine. Therefore you’re pulling a strawman.

No im not, as there will be no objective arbiter to punish “private law agencies” that stone muslim women or who takes over other peoples “property”(that doesnt even really exist in anarcocapitalism) by force. That is what you are advocating.

A free market cannot work when there are only corpses.

It did “work” before they were corpses. If everyone stopped eating by choice, it would have no bearing on whether the market is free or not.

If someone someday steals an apple, is the market free ?

If all transactions are taxed, is the market free ?

It’s theft in both cases, but what makes the second market unfree is that right violation is institutionalized.

No, what makes the second market unfree is that the thief isnt punished. The whole point of my argument!

The rights are always here, and the free market may provide for the enforcement of said rights. yes it requires a bootstrap, but that’s hardly a problem.

Where? Where are the “rights” in North Korea?

Rights are what should be respected. They’re not irrelevant, they tell us how to act morally. Your right to own your wallet isn’t irrelevant, because, even without any form of enforcement, I choose to be moral and not steal your wallet. Dude, I’m being 100% ARI kosher here, this is the Objectivist stance.

Find me an Objectivist, from ARI or otherwise, that says rights enforcement is not a necessity for rights to be rights. The reason i do not steal, murder etc. is because it is unethical, making me a second hander. Rights dont exist to “make” people moral, they exist to protect the moral from the initiators of force.

i just noticed that he said he was leaving the forum, so i wont adress the rest of his post. I spent some time writing this answer so i’ll just post it anyway.

22

Hence, I did not actually “have” that right. Just like the north koreans dont have property rights. They should have, but they dont. Your making it seem like everyone just somehow intrinsically “has” rights. Rights are not metaphysical. The point of rights in Objectivism is not: “We all automatically “have” rights” but instead “in order for men to live free together, these rights should be respected”

I’m not sure I understand this. Before rights can be respected, they would have to exist first, correct? How are they brought into existence? Who creates them?

23

Hence, why Objectivist support 1) an objective government, 2) a government monopoly on the use of retaliatory force.

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.

I’m not sure I understand this. Before rights can be respected, they would have to exist first, correct? How are they brought into existence? Who creates them?

They’re not created but rather recognized.

I never understand why some people, O’ist and non-O’ist alike, seem to think that we can guarantee people that their rights won’t be violated, or that no bad in life will ever come to you. :stuck_out_tongue: There are no such guarantees!

There will be crazy people. There will be looters and moochers. There will be stupid people who never “get it.” There will be murderers. There will be people and/or businesses that violate contracts. There will always be rights-violators mingling amongst free men. *

HOWEVER, by having a moral government in place (a government that is authorized to use force to protect the rights of its citizens), the aforementioned crazy idiots can be punished for violating rights.

* Although I believe that in an O’ist society, these people would be much fewer and farther between since there would be no reward for such behavior.

I agree with you, K-Mac. Well said.

24

I’m not sure I understand this. Before rights can be respected, they would have to exist first, correct? How are they brought into existence? Who creates them?

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.

25

They’re not created but rather recognized.

That’s what I would argue, but I think JJJJ would disagree.

26

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?

27

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.

28

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).

29

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.

30

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.

31

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?

32

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.

33

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.

34

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.