About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 5:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What exactly is a society supposed to be like to be suitable to human life as such? This is not about some special form of human life such as athletics, commerce, academics or religious. It is about human community life, period. ... So, then, what is it that a proper human community, fit for inhabitation of flourishing by human beings just as human beings, should be like? And here those who champion individual rights to life, liberty and property maintain that such a society may never, for any purpose, involve any coercive actions and policies.

Of course, "those who champion individual rights to life, liberty and property," do maintain that a proper human society may, "never, for any purpose, initiate any coercive actions and policies," but those who tell you, "if you don't like it, go somewhere else," are not those who champion such things.

They, like most citizens of the semi-free nations, believe rights are entitlements, that simply because they were born, they, "have a right to," certain things and that governments are instituted to ensure they get their rights.

The problem is, there are more of that kind of citizen than "those who champion individual rights to life, liberty and property," and there always will be.

But here is a dilemma. Why do we champion individual liberty to think, and choose, and be responsible for our own lives? Because we know that is a requirement of human life to live, to succeed, and to enjoy one's life. Individual liberty is as much a necessity of human life as bread.

So, we institute government to ensure we have this necessity of human life called liberty. Those who do no agree with us are going to say, "what's the difference between bread and liberty?" If liberty ought to be guaranteed to everyone, because it is a necessity of human life, why should not food, or clothing, or any other necessity of human life be guaranteed?

Good question, and the best answer we can provide is, because without liberty none of the other things can be provided by anyone. But the bigger question is, can government provide anything, even liberty? The answer is, government cannot, and the present state of all countries where the best effort was made to secure liberty that way is the proof; and the reason is, because there are always more of the other kind of citizen, the kind that doesn't give rap about freedom as long as they are guaranteed bread.

So what is the freedom lover to do. Like everything else in life, freedom must be secured by the individual, because there is no moral right to what one has not produced, earned, or secured by their own effort and choice, not even liberty.

Regi

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 6:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
By the way...

The correct response to someone who says, "if you don't like it, why don't you leave," is:

Leave!? Why would I leave? When my house becomes infested by pests and parasites, I don't leave, I irradicate the pests and parasites.

When asked how I intend to do that, I respond:

I have learned it is not a good idea to warn the rat I intend to catch and drown how I intend to do it.

Regi

Post 2

Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 8:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
mooooooooooo!!!!

Post 3

Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 3:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The flip side of this comes when people choose to live in private communities with standards stricter than the open human community, e.g. deed restricted communities that hold occupants to contractual standards of house color, lawn grooming, etc., only to endure alleged "libertarians" who blast the concept as a "violation of property rights."  I will never forget a self-styled "libertarian" who whined and moaned about how the popularity of such communities robbed him of his "right" to build a ham radio tower on his lawn.  I kindly infomed him that such communities arose as a response to market demand for such housing and that he ought to shop more carefully for a house that did not have such private deed restrictions.  He could not get himself off his alleged "right" to build a ham radio tower wherever he happened to live, however.

The only successful challenge to such private restrictions of which I am aware came back when dish satellite television became widely available.  A court ruling dictated that a private association of homeowners could not restrict housing appearance to prevent the installation of such dishes, small as they are, in visible areas of the house exterior.  I am not a lawyer but I would have a hard time arguing against such a ruling as wrong headed.  A ham radio tower, however, huge as it is, would be a tougher argument in court, I imagine.


Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 - 12:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The love-it or-leave-it argument is curious, because it says that one has the freedom to choose another country, if one objects to a denial of freedom of choice in this country. In so doing, it invokes the very principle of liberty whose violations it is seeking to justify.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.