The Objectivist view on rights is that of individual rights. Every individual has the right to live his life without physical force being initiated against him from his “brothers”.
The Objectivist view is based on an observation of the external world and on an observation of man’s internal world. I observe the fact that I am alive, life meaning, what I’m doing right now while typing and eating cereal, having just finished my coffee. The fact that we breathe is a fact one cannot deny. I observe that this life “thing” is an alternative; I can be dead or I can kill myself.
However, with a different metaphysics, Idealism, and with a different epistemology, subjectivism, one can always ask: Well, how do I know that this life “thing” is not a dream, or a dream within a dream within a dream? Then life can mean this present delusion of my senses, or an impossible experience in some other realm.
So, the Objectivist position is based on an epistemology that accepts the evidence of one’s senses and the efficacy of reason.
The Founding Father’s for example, could accept an individual rights position because they were deists, who thought that god got things started and then let man act according to free will. They accepted the basic fact that they exist and are living.
Once you see that living is a choice, then you start to think about the requirements of life and the motivation for life. Life causes personal happiness; but life also requires effort. There are values, such as food, clothing and shelter that men need to live.
In modern times, property, the source of basic values, is divided among public and private hands. You have a right to live in the sense that no one has the right to kill you or take away that which you buy or produce. But you don’t have a right to be fed and clothed and housed by someone else.
Go to some wilderness where no government exists, and that no man owns. The right to life applies there as it applies in Toronto. But there you have to trade your effort for nature’s fruit. You can pick fruit, hunt, plant seed, use leaves as clothing. If you arrived with more knowledge you can do much more for yourself. The patch of wilderness that you use is yours, your property.
A right to life in Toronto, does not mean that you can live in any house you want to, that the owner must feed you, cloth you, love you, etc.
After enough effort, you observe that your mind and its action is the source of property and food, clothing, shelter, etc. And so the right to life means the right to think what one wants. In the wilderness, who could stop you? In Toronto, there’s a bigger danger of that: no one can really stop you from thinking, but they can stop you from communicating that thought. Physical force can stop thought, or more precisely your choice of thought. When someone forces you, say a mugger, you are not engaged in production, but in the defense against destruction.
You have a right to exert the effort required to support your life, so long as it is on your property, or property on which you are allowed to exert that effort on.
In modern times, few people cultivate their food, but rather go on someone’s property, ask for a job, receive money, then goes on someone else’s property and trades for food, then goes to one’s own property and pays the landlord or the bank.
When one faces the basic fact of one’s existence, think about the meaning of the right to death, or the duty to death. What rights do you need after you kill yourself?
I hope this helps.
But certainly read what has been suggested of Rand’s writings. Also, Anthem would be an enjoyable read, and it will inspire you to investigate the issue further.
Americo.
