Rights?

Kurt,

It’s kind of like this: The topic of discussion is X. Someone makes a false statement about X, and in that same statement makes true assertions A, B, C, P and Y. The impression is that what they’re really saying is mostly true.

So Rand made the statement that if the world goes to hell in a hand basket, a gun will not make it OK. That’s true. But don’t let that blur the fact that she dismissed the importance of the right to bear arms: “I don't think it's very important…”

I understand that she was not hostile to that right. And you are correct that I was using it as an example. The assertion was being floated that there can be no “rights” (quotes in original) unless action, actual force, is applied in furtherance of the right. It was simply an example of someone who never applied any force, but indeed outright dismissed the importance of the right, never exercised the right—and I asked if these facts, supposedly the requirements in order for rights to arise, would, in absence, obliterate her right to bear arms.

Apparently, it is an unfair question. An example that proves I am not reading or trying to understand.

Jon

Post 41

Friday, February 10, 2006 - 11:43am

While we’re on this, Kurt, I do disagree with her entire statement. If the world was all hunky-dory, that is when the importance of the right to bear arms is lessened. It is precisely when things are falling apart—the world, the country, or your neighborhood—that is when the importance of that right grows.

She stated that good ideas would keep things from falling apart, which is true, but irrelevant. Always beware of false arguments that are littered with lots of correct but off topic statements.

Jon

Post 42

Friday, February 10, 2006 - 12:06pm

You have me thinking more, Kurt.

She totally missed the meaning of his first question. You can see their exchange in post 24. His first question means: ‘Do you see a danger or a conflict between the government as exclusive agent for the use of force on the one hand, and more and more people applying for gun permits on the other?’ She missed that question and did not answer it.

His question number two she did answer, correctly.

Previously in this thread I wrote that she went out of her way to dismiss the importance of the right to bear arms, and she did. She wasn’t asked about the importance—she just tossed that in!

There may have been previous context in the interview that would shed more light, but I don’t there was. I listened to this interview two or three times about twenty years ago, so I am not sure until I dig it up and listen again.

Jon

Post 43

Friday, February 10, 2006 - 12:44pm

From Ayn Rand Answers (p 19) ...

=====================
What is your opinion on gun control?

I do not know enough about it to have an opinion, except to say that it's not of primary importance. Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, noncriminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun.
=====================

Ford Hall Forum, 1971

Ed

Post 44

Friday, February 10, 2006 - 1:12pm

Well, interesting. I think this is because of her background. Once she was out of Russia and in the USA, she basically was within very law-abiding areas where chances were low of direct violence to her person. She should have thought it through more. I do recall reading, and maybe it was Peikoff not Rand? something about the value of weapons because of the fact that police could not always respond to imminent threat, and I thought it was an excellent argument.

Now, as to "society going to hell" this is very contextual and can be easily exaggerated. I think it would be important but not sufficient to protect oneself with weapons. Once the police state is there, an individual won't win against the state, but then you will need to move to armed revolt... but to Rand, this is not her realm - her realm is ideas and philosophy and how to create a culture that would reject a police state, including "not sanctioning your oppressor" which would provide resistance to any encroaching police state.

Instead of thinking of self-sacrifice to the state, people who think individualistically will not tolerate these encroachments, and at the very least will resist - and that is the first step in preventing or reversing such a thing. For example the Communism in the East simply collapsed on its own contradictions once no one believed in the state any longer. The fact that each citizen had or didnt have weapons was irrelevent. Doesnt mean it always happens that way.

Post 45

Friday, February 10, 2006 - 3:14pm

Kurt,

That’s all fine, I will just repeat my point that ‘how to prevent a police state’ had nothing to do with either question she was asked. And further, she wasn’t even saying ‘police state’, she said, “if the government collapses bankrupt”

I disagree with her completely. If the government collapses it’ll be New Orleans Katrina Week One where I live.

Jon

Post 46

Friday, February 10, 2006 - 7:22pm

Jon,

I am baffled that you cannot see the irrelevance of your so called "examples" and "analogies". You make me tired. I'm beginning to wonder if there is any intelligence behind that scowl. I will go verrry slowly, beginning with your "mountain man".

This is a perfect example of where any abstract idea of "rights" has no relevance whatsoever. Two men, completely isolated. They are dependant on two things with respect to one another, their goodwill towards each other, presumably, in their isolated circumstance, they would stand to benefit by cooperation with each other. They also depend on their mutual respect towards each other. Predators generally do not prey on other predators because the risk is too great. Humans have an even greater risk. Most humans have some social connections, even your "mountain man" likely involves himself in trade perhaps several times a year. He likely has friends who would miss him if he doesn't show up as expected and very likely will come looking for him. Some abstract notion of "rights" has nothing to do with what will happen. People look after their own interests, that is all.

By the way, I've spent a year in the interior of Alaska, north of Fairbanks towards Livengood. I've met a couple of your "mountain men" and I think you have much more to fear from them than they of you. They certainly won't be distracted by some abstract notion of "rights". They live there mainly to get away from the obfuscating bullshit of the "lower 48", or the "cesspool" as they call it.

Post 47

Friday, February 10, 2006 - 7:38pm

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 2/10, 9:35pm)

Post 48

Friday, February 10, 2006 - 9:34pm

Mike,

Muscles will always win whenever it comes down to muscles.

Dismayingly, you take this fact for the Objectivist Ethics, when in fact those ethics were developed to protect the individual from this fact.

Jon

Post 49

Friday, February 10, 2006 - 10:01pm

Rick,

You said:
"
If rights were a "social contract" then they would be dependant on the agreement, that is, permission, of others and therefore not rights at all.

Ayn Rand defined rights as moral principles. Moral principles depend on the nature of man and the world he lives in, not the whims of other people.
"

The "social contract" is between all of those who would have their rights recognized and those who will enforce this recognition. It is NOT between rights holders and rights violators.

My understanding of the origin of the concept of rights is this: It is in the self interest of a person to recognize the self interests of other persons, for many positive reasons and some negative ones. It is in the repeated recognition of this fact over time that the concept of "rights" and their protection came into existence and became part of our culture. Meaning, something you should teach your kids. Also attached to the concept of rights are consequences if these "rights" are violated. Without these consequences the concept of rights is meaningless. They are two sides of the same coin. You are NOT dependant on the whims of other people if your rights are being enforced. THERE HAS TO BE ENFORCEMENT. THIS IS NOT AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT. No enforcement, no rights.

Post 50

Friday, February 10, 2006 - 10:13pm

Jon,

The concept of rights is the contract we have with our government to force those who would prey upon us to find other employment. If force were not necessary against those who would aggress neither the concept of rights or government would need to exist.

That's how I see it at this moment in time, like it or not.

Post 51

Friday, February 10, 2006 - 11:21pm

Mike,

We are not talking about the same thing.

What you are talking about, I think I understand. It makes sense and it is true in the sense I understand you to intend.

Post 52

Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 12:05am

Mike,

You write: "The "social contract" is between all of those who would have their rights recognized and those who will enforce this recognition. It is NOT between rights holders and rights violators."

1) What is this so-called "social contract"? I recognise no such thing.

2) How can this so-called "social contract" recognize something that doesn't exist independently? Your so-called "social contract" doesn't recognize rights, it creates them.

3) The purpose of rights is to provide moral sanction for independent action, which means against rights violators. Rights justify your saying to others (the rights violators) "your actions are wrong."

It really saddens me that the concept of rights is so little understood.

Post 53

Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 12:27am

Rick's right, anarchist or no anarchist.

Ed

Post 54

Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 4:45am

Ed, perhaps you should consider that there might be a connection.

Post 55

Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 6:45am

Good comeback, Rick.

Ed

Post 56

Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 10:10am

Rick,

An implied or explicit "contract" is how agreements and trade occur between individuals.

Contracts are entered into to SOLVE problems not to create them.

I don't care about justifying anything to "rights" violators. "Actions have consequences" is the only message I want to give to would be aggressors.

How can you talk about "rights" as a inherent property of human beings and also talk about their "purpose"? That almost sounds religious to me.

There are two situations where I hope you agree that "rights" are not necessary and would be meaningless: 1. Isolated individuals who have no contact with others 2. A group which consisted of 100% non-aggressors.

I also am distressed that "rights" are so little understood. As a personal note: this has bugged me for a LONG time.

Post 57

Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 12:55pm

Mike (sorry to bud in, Rick),

======================
How can you talk about "rights" as a inherent property of human beings and also talk about their "purpose"? That almost sounds religious to me.
======================

Because things that are natural have purposes. Eric Mack gives an excellent depiction of this aspect of reality in his chapter of The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand -- talking about hearts.

Mack imagines aliens first becoming aware of hearts, not really knowing what they are or what they are for. To the aliens, hearts might be thought of as internal timing devices (because of the beats, like clicks of a clock), and then the ones the beat most steadily would be considered the best. Hearts might be judged by their look, their feel, etc. etc. The point of the matter is -- the answer that destroys the question of what a heart is -- is to find the purpose of the damn thing (that's when you, truly, know what a heart is). This answer ...

Hearts can't ever be understood -- without a prior understanding of cellular needs (the things that depend on hearts).

On this particular subject though, James Donald has a good web page showing how "natural" the individual rights are. An excerpt ...

======================
Natural law is, or follows from, an ESS [evolutionary stable strategy] for the use of force: Conduct which violates natural law is conduct such that, if a man were to use individual unorganized violence to prevent such conduct, or, in the absence of orderly society, use individual unorganized violence to punish such conduct, then such violence would not indicate that the person using such violence, (violence in accord with natural law) is a danger to a reasonable man. This definition is equivalent to the definition that comes from the game theory of iterated three or more player non zero sum games, applied to evolutionary theory. The idea of law, of actions being lawful or unlawful, has the emotional significance that it does have, because this ESS for the use of force is part of our nature.
======================

Source:
http://jim.com/rights.html

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/11, 12:57pm)

Post 58

Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 4:07pm

Ed,

OK, understood. I like the "reasonable man" part. I take it that "evolutionary" part of ESS refers to cultural evolution of ideas? And when these ideas are consistent with the flourishing of the practitioners of these ideas they are considered part of "Natural Law"? Meaning they work in practice? I'm more comfortable with physics and engineering concepts.

The direction of my whole argument is to emphasize the ACTION side of "rights" equation, the mechanism by which it works. The judicious use of FORCE, without which any concept of rights is meaningless. Defining "rights" as a universal PROPERTY of humans, being enforced by some with an unlimited free rider for all others is the greatest argument for the existence of government that I can think of. "Moral sanction" is not much of a deterrent, unless it is a euphemism for tracking down miscreants and beating the crap out of them.

Abstracting and euphemising rights is a disservice which has led to misunderstanding and misuse of the term rights, i.e.: all sorts of "positive" rights.

Post 59

Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 4:28pm