Forcing an individual to help themselves

Michael said parenthetically:

I do wonder what Glenn is so afraid of. I smell fear. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I get suspicious whenever a simple question is met with a bunch of speculations about motives and character. Shades of Randroids.

Fear has nothing to do with it. I was warning Bill and Teresa (although Teresa has already bowed out) about wasting their time discussing this topic with you. But, Bill, of course can do whatever he likes. That's his right, whether he chooses to exercise it or not.

As for me, after being described by you as afraid of confronting issues and being compared to a Randroid, I'm not only bowing out of this conversation, but also any further conversations with you. Have a nice life.
Glenn

Post 101

Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 3:07pm

Glenn,

After your continuous insinuations about my honesty, that's no loss at all - only a gain for me. You have a nice life too (and I mean it, though I doubt you did).

Michael

Post 102

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 7:47am

MSK said to Glenn:
"You have a nice life too (and I mean it, though I doubt you did)."

MSK: while you doubt that Glenn had a nice life, I have no doubt whatsoever of what kind of life you have had. It's all there in your writings. I believe Glenn saw it just as clearly as I did.

Post 103

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 10:04am

Michael, you wrote,

Back to the issue. You used a term called "dependent rights." How would you define this? What is a dependent right? This might be an interesting direction to explore. Hell, I am even finding difficulty in understanding the definition of "infant" or "child" in Objectivism.

I would define a "dependent right" as a right to be supported by someone else. For example, if I confine a criminal suspect to jail pending trial, I must provide him or her with sustenance until the person is out of jail and able to live independently. Similarly, if I bring a helpless human being into the world, I must provide him or her with sustenance until the person grows up and is able to live independently.

We are all supposed to be born with inalienable rights (which I understand to mean that our society recognizes these powers indiscriminately for all citizens), yet a newborn is not considered as fully having them, thus it follows that he cannot be considered a citizen - only a potential citizen. Correct? (Yet he is not a potential animal, he is only potentially rational.)

He has these rights to the extent that he can exercise them. Look, you cannot deny someone rights, if he or she does not have the capacity to exercise them. Nor does it make sense to ascribe rights to someone who hasn't the capacity to exercise them. It makes no sense to say that a baby has a "right" to liberty or to the pursuit of happiness. What could that possibly mean? You could say that a baby has a right to life, in the sense of a right to be supported by the parents, but that's about it. When and as the child acquires the ability to act independently, he or she acquires rights that are commensurate with the degree of his or her development. But you wouldn't permit a child to consume narcotics, even though an adult would have that right, because the child doesn't understand the risks of drug use, and because until he or she is autonomous and independent, the parents are responsible for the child's welfare. I don't know what is to be gained by calling a child a "potential" citizen. When we say that someone is a citizen by birth, what we mean is that when the person reaches maturity he has the same civil rights as every other adult. What pointless, hairsplitting goals are served by distinguishing between a "citizen" and a "potential citizen" when it comes to a child? None, as far as I can see.

I find your argument that parents choose to bring a helpless child into the world lacking when I see all the unwanted (unchosen) pregnancies.

If the mother doesn't want the child, she can have an abortion. No one is forcing her to bear the child.

I don't think that is a proper basis for parental obligations that will stand the test of logic without twisting the concept of "choose" all out of shape (enter the ever-present "evasion"). I do agree that some biological parents choose to have children and a foster parent chooses to assume guardianship. Orphanages also choose that.

What mother who carries her pregnancy to term doesn't choose to bear the child?

Shouldn't the genus (animal) be thought about more than the differentia (rational) here, since reproduction is more of a biological concern than a rational one? Aren't laws and rights supposed to be for the whole human being, and not merely the differentia part?

See above.

Incidentally, just to answer a question that was left in the air, if anyone wants to see children who are in a very real situation without parents (regardless of why), walk into any police station in the country and look at the missing persons list. Theoretically these missing children have parents, but in the situation they are in (the ones who are still alive), they don't. They will only have parents or legal guardians again once they are reunited. If they are never reunited, they are essentially parentless.

I don't think anyone here is denying that. Again, what Teresa meant by her statement that no children are without parents is that every child has biological parents who are responsible for the child's welfare, whether the parents are there for the child or not.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 4/05, 12:48pm)

Post 104

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 10:31am

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 12:14pm

deleted
(Edited by John Newnham
on 4/05, 12:18pm)

Post 106

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 3:03pm

Hong,

You misunderstood me. I was not talking about Glenn's life, merely his intentions in wishing me well. It sounded like sarcasm and a put-down in that context (sort of like your post). I wanted to stress that I was not being sarcastic, but really wishing him well (and I do).

I also wish you well. I believe you have shared some of your own life and hardships in your articles. Of course, your "enemy" was more acceptable in terms of traditional Objectivist literature, as Rand was radically anti-communist. Do you feel that you are portraying your victimhood in those articles? Or were you emphasizing your escape and the principles involved? Something to think about.

Bill - I will get to this a little later, but amidst all the heckling, I don't know how far we will be able to do this in a serious manner here on RoR.

Michael

Post 107

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 5:22pm

Bill,

I would define a "dependent right" as a right to be supported by someone else. For example, if I confine a criminal suspect to jail pending trial, I must provide him or her with sustenance until the person is out of jail and able to live independently.

In this case, you then admit that the government has the authority to enforce the child's "dependent right" on adult citizens who fit the criteria (biological parents or legal guardians). This means that the government can prescribe what that adult has to do within certain parameters and penalize the adult for not doing it. Is my assessment of your position correct?

Also, the question of the "dependent rights" of a jailed criminal applies to a governmental entity, not to individual citizens. So your "someone else" can be the government and it can be a single individual (biological parent).

The conclusion I derive from this is that the government does not exist merely to secure the rights of individuals, but to impose obligations to act as well when protecting the rights of two or more individuals enters into conflict. Do you agree with this assessment of your position?

Look, you cannot deny someone rights, if he or she does not have the capacity to exercise them. Nor does it make sense to ascribe rights to someone who hasn't the capacity to exercise them. It makes no sense to say that a baby has a "right" to liberty or to the pursuit of happiness. What could that possibly mean? You could say that a baby has a right to life, in the sense of a right to be supported by the parents, but that's about it.

From this, I deduct that the following statement can be made.

A newborn is not born with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. His right to life is derived only from the actions of his biological parents and legal guardians. He acquires these rights as he matures.

Here is what The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

Rand held this up as the most important document in human history. It does not mention that any organization or man ascribes rights. Only the Creator does that. Thus in your understanding of Objectivism, where the philosophy differs from The Declaration of Independence is that it does not recognize a "Creator" (and I agree with Objectivism unless a Creator presents itself to my sense-based awareness someday), and that someone or something "ascribes" rights to persons.

While I do agree that rights are agreed upon by charter, they are also rationally derived from man's nature. The USA charter specifically states that upon being created, a man (human being in that context) already bears these rights.

Shall we split hairs over what "created" means? Does it mean being born or does it mean growing to maturity? Also, does man's nature include biological considerations? If so, which? (These are serious questions that are not covered in traditional Objectivist literature.)

I don't know what is to be gained by calling a child a "potential" citizen.

I don't mind coming up with another term. My definition of "citizen" included full endowment of rights. If you prefer to include the "potential" nature of children in the term "citizen," that's OK by me. What would your legal term be, then for a citizen without the exercise of rights? As I understand it, you state that the child has rights, but cannot exercise them, then you state that he is not "ascribed" with rights. Does he have rights in your understanding or does he not? If he has "potential" rights (contingent on reaching a stage of development), it makes sense to come up with a term to describe this state. I settled on "potential citizen." I'm open to other suggestions.

Going back to your former statement, but to focus on a point, you state:

You could say that a baby has a right to life, in the sense of a right to be supported by the parents, but that's about it.

Thus, in your understanding, a baby without legal guardians nearby has no right to life. Obviously, however, I presume you extend the right to life to a baby without legal guardians nearby to include protection against being killed by strangulation, being shot, and things like that (and this would extend to the criminal prosecution of someone who did those things). Thus I see your derivation of "right to life" being solely NIOF for a baby without legal guardians nearby. In all other instances, he has no right to life. Is my assessment of your position correct?

Moving on:

What mother who carries her pregnancy to term doesn't choose to bear the child?

That is one of the twists of logic I don't like to use. The mother is not choosing to have a child. She is choosing to not undergo surgery. Nature is what is doing all the basic choosing about having the child. All the woman has to do is not act and the choice is made for her. This might seem like a hairsplit, but it is important to defining things in terms of biology versus volition.

A woman does not necessarily choose to become pregnant. She can choose to engage in heterosexual genital-to-genital sex without a prophylactic (and even be forced into it), but whether she becomes pregnant or not is not within her choice. She only chooses to leave her organism open as much as possible for that. The only time she can really choose to become pregnant is with artificial insemination.

On the other end, she cannot choose to have a child if she is pregnant. She already has it growing in her. She can choose to eliminate it through surgery. Thus she doesn't choose to bear the child, but she can choose to not carry the child to term. That is her only choice. Inaction or even lack of making a choice will result in the child being born over time. She is not actively choosing to bring a human being into existence in a helpless state. Nature does that all by itself in the lack of choice.

I'm not discussing the fetus/child thing either. I'm focusing merely on the woman's perspective.

btw - My mention of Teresa's "metaphysical" position was merely prompted by the constant shifting context. Either we are discussing rights (politics) or we are discussing metaphysics. "Parents" in the context we were discussing (rights) meant legal guardians, not animal biology. I find resorting to that kind of shift in mid-discussion - accompanied by bombastic rhetoric - merely playing games.

I do hope we can continue this discussion here. We might even come up with some interesting ideas as we go along. (I want to state for the record that the only reason I am tolerating the heckling so far is in respect for you and the discussion we left unfinished.)

Michael

Post 108

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 8:38pm

MSK, be warned! The following may be interpreted by you as "heckling." Please ignore if this is even a remote possibility. If you choose to continue now, don't complain later.

btw - My mention of Teresa's "metaphysical" position was merely prompted by the constant shifting context. Either we are discussing rights (politics) or we are discussing metaphysics. "Parents" in the context we were discussing (rights) meant legal guardians, not animal biology. I find resorting to that kind of shift in mid-discussion - accompanied by bombastic rhetoric - merely playing games.

Well, duh!

Wow, and all this time I thought, in the Objectivist world at least, that metaphysics had a bearing on all other branches of philosophy that impact every facet of human life. In other words, it's not possible to remove ethics from politics, or epistemology from ethics, or metaphysics from epistemology. This was something I thought even the TOC/ARI open/closed system debaters agreed with.

Now I learn that politics is wholly removed from under them all in the book of Objectivism According to MSK. No big surprize, but I disagree, and not with much respect.

"Moving on."

Bill said:

You could say that a baby has a right to life, in the sense of a right to be supported by the parents, but that's about it.

To which MSK continued his agenda:

Thus, in your understanding, a baby without legal guardians nearby has no right to life.

Again, and I ask with impunity, did this child just drop out of the sky?

If a child's widowed orphaned mother dies while giving birth to it, the law demands a remedy to the situation because that child has rights! The law demands that orphaned children are housed, fed, educated, clothed, and hopefully loved, but only by parties willing to take on the responsibility. Barring any willing participants, the government herself will attempt to parent these children through tax paid institutions. The law seeks to remedy that which causes a child to be parentless, because they have the "right to life."

We value children in this country, and in turn, we consistently maintain a government body that enforces responsibility for them through voluntary cooperation. Yes these children have absolute, inalienable, individual rights!

Newborns absolutely have a right to life supported by their parents. Barring that, supported by another recognized, willing adult. "Recognized" and "willing" are key here, because rights can't be enforced if the parties involved are unknown, and any consequent enforcement is worthless if the parties aren't willing.

Post 109

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 11:02pm

Michael wrote,

In this case, you then admit that the government has the authority to enforce the child's "dependent right" on adult citizens who fit the criteria (biological parents or legal guardians). This means that the government can prescribe what that adult has to do within certain parameters and penalize the adult for not doing it. Is my assessment of your position correct?

Yes.

The conclusion I derive from this is that the government does not exist merely to secure the rights of individuals, but to impose obligations to act as well when protecting the rights of two or more individuals enters into conflict. Do you agree with this assessment of your position?

No. The government is securing the right of the child to be supported by the parents. There is no conflict here. If the government enforces the right of a criminal suspect (who has yet to be convicted of a crime) to be properly fed while behind bars, then the government is securing his rights.

I wrote, "Look, you cannot deny someone rights, if he or she does not have the capacity to exercise them. Nor does it make sense to ascribe rights to someone who hasn't the capacity to exercise them. It makes no sense to say that a baby has a "right" to liberty or to the pursuit of happiness. What could that possibly mean? You could say that a baby has a right to life, in the sense of a right to be supported by the parents, but that's about it." Michael replied,

From this, I deduct
"deduce" :-)
that the following statement can be made.

A newborn is not born with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. His right to life is derived only from the actions of his biological parents and legal guardians.
His right to life is not "derived" from the actions of his biological parents and legal guardians. Where did you get that idea?
He acquires these rights as he matures.

I wouldn't say that he acquires the right to life (understood as the right to be supported by his parents) as he matures. He has that right from the moment of birth.

What would your legal term be, then, for a citizen without the exercise of rights?

You mean "without the capacity to exercise certain rights? Why do you need a special legal term? We don't have a special legal term for citizens who aren't old enough to be president. Why should we have one for citizens who aren't old enough to live independently?

As I understand it, you state that the child has rights, but cannot exercise them, then you state that he is not "ascribed" with rights. Does he have rights in your understanding or does he not?

Where did I state that the child has rights but cannot exercise them? I said that a child has rights to the extent that he can exercise them.

Going back to your former statement, but to focus on a point, you state:
You could say that a baby has a right to life, in the sense of a right to be supported by the parents, but that's about it.
Thus, in your understanding, a baby without legal guardians nearby has no right to life.
No, I didn't say that. He has a right to be supported by the parents, which is simply another way of saying that his biological parents are obligated to support him. They don't lose that obligation simply because they've deserted him for greener pastures. They still have the responsibility to reunite with him and to assume the proper role of a parent.
Obviously, however, I presume you extend the right to life to a baby without legal guardians nearby to include protection against being killed by strangulation, being shot, and things like that (and this would extend to the criminal prosecution of someone who did those things). Thus I see your derivation of "right to life" being solely NIOF for a baby without legal guardians nearby. In all other instances, he has no right to life. Is my assessment of your position correct?

Yes, except that the baby still has a right to be supported by the parents; they don't lose the obligation to support him simply because they've deserted him.

I wrote, "What mother who carries her pregnancy to term doesn't choose to bear the child?"

That is one of the twists of logic I don't like to use. The mother is not choosing to have a child. She is choosing to not undergo surgery.

Which amounts to the same thing; she is choosing to have the child rather than abort it.

Nature is what is doing all the basic choosing about having the child. All the woman has to do is not act and the choice is made for her. This might seem like a hairsplit, but it is important to defining things in terms of biology versus volition.

Volition is still involved! You could just as well argue that all the deadbeat parents have to do is not act (to support their child) and nature will kill their child for them - which means that they didn't "choose" their child's death; nature chose it. If you wouldn't say this in the case of the deadbeat parents, then don't say it in the case of the woman who chooses to give birth rather than terminate her pregnancy.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 4/05, 11:07pm)

Post 110

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 11:51pm

Bill,

Some things are starting to slip logic-wise, but I will not belabor them too much. I don't think you understood the following (I probably wasn't clear):

The conclusion I derive from this is that the government does not exist merely to secure the rights of individuals, but to impose obligations to act as well when protecting the rights of two or more individuals enters into conflict. Do you agree with this assessment of your position?
No. The government is securing the right of the child to be supported by the parents. There is no conflict here.

A conflict of rights would occur if a parent does not wish to feed the kid. I was talking about the child's right to life against the parent's right to freedom of action. Those are the two people. If there were no obligation attributed to the parent, the two rights would collide if the parent was negligent, since the rights of the child would be violated. Thus there is a legal need to establish an obligation for the parent to act. That is what I meant.

You wrote:

I wouldn't say that he acquires the right to life (understood as the right to be supported by his parents) as he matures. He has that right from the moment of birth.

I'll agree that this is clear. I am still having trouble with the term "ascribe," however.

When you make the following kind of statement:

Why do you need a special legal term?

I find it useless to continue discussion on that point when you dismiss something obvious as unnecessary. Leave it to say that you may not need a special legal term, but legal experts and lawmakers practically all agree that one needs to be made (which is why one exists: "minor").

You wrote:

Where did I state that the child has rights but cannot exercise them? I said that a child has rights to the extent that he can exercise them.

And if that extent does not allow him to exercise his rights? He has them and cannot exercise them. I'm confused. I don't understand your logic here.

I wrote and you responded:

Thus, in your understanding, a baby without legal guardians nearby has no right to life.
No, I didn't say that. He has a right to be supported by the parents, which is simply another way of saying that his biological parents are obligated to support him. They don't lose that obligation simply because they've deserted him for greener pastures. They still have the responsibility to reunite with him and to assume the proper role of a parent.

There are many reasons why a parent might not be near (abduction, death, etc.) - not just desertion and "greener pastures." My intention in this discussion is to hone a legal idea with precision, not weave all over the place with speculations

But if you want to do it that way, what about the death of his parents? In your explanation, apparently his right to life extinguishes with their death (except for a right against aggression).

That is one of the twists of logic I don't like to use. The mother is not choosing to have a child. She is choosing to not undergo surgery.
Which amounts to the same thing; she is choosing to have the child rather than abort it.

Wrong. You didn't understand what I was saying, but I don't think you wanted to. So let's just drop this point, with one minor comment. You wrote:

Volition is still involved! You could just as well argue that all the deadbeat parents have to do is not act (to support their child) and nature will kill their child for them - which means that they didn't "choose" their child's death; nature chose it. If you wouldn't say this in the case of the deadbeat parents, then don't say it in the case of the woman who chooses to give birth rather than terminate her pregnancy.

We are talking about legal issues here. Of course nature takes its course in starvation, but the deadbeat parents have a legal obligation that they choose not to observe. A pregnant woman has no such legal obligation to bring her baby to term. She can simply not choose anything at all and it will happen over time. I stand by my distinction.

Anyway, I think I've basically got the answers I need. (I'm making a bit of a survey for my own work and you are an intelligent Objectivist I respect a great deal, thus your answers interest me.) Thank you very much.

In exchange, if you have any questions, I will be glad to answer them.

Michael

Post 111

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 6:02am

Bill Dwyer,

I congrtulate you for your posts on this thread. They have been powerful and honest. Excellent work.

Ethan

Post 112

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 6:35pm

Michael, you wrote,

Some things are starting to slip logic-wise, but I will not belabor them too much. I don't think you understood the following (I probably wasn't clear): The conclusion I derive from this is that the government does not exist merely to secure the rights of individuals, but to impose obligations to act as well when protecting the rights of two or more individuals enters into conflict. Do you agree with this assessment of your position?
No. The government is securing the right of the child to be supported by the parents. There is no conflict here.
A conflict of rights would occur if a parent does not wish to feed the kid. I was talking about the child's right to life against the parent's right to freedom of action.
That the parents don't wish to feed their child does not mean that there is a conflict between the rights of the parents and those of the child, any more than if I didn't wish to fulfill my contract with you, there would be a conflict between my rights and yours. The parents don't have a right to neglect their child's welfare any more than I would have a right to default on my contract with you.
Those are the two people. If there were no obligation attributed to the parent, the two rights would collide if the parent was negligent, since the rights of the child would be violated. Thus there is a legal need to establish an obligation for the parent to act. That is what I meant.

The right of the child to be supported by the parents implies a corresponding obligation of the parents to support him or her. There is no need to posit a parental obligation in addition to the child's right to receive parental support. An obligation is a necessary correlate of a right. The latter could not exist without the former.

When you make the following kind of statement: Why do you need a special legal term? I find it useless to continue discussion on that point when you dismiss something obvious as unnecessary. Leave it to say that you may not need a special legal term, but legal experts and lawmakers practically all agree that one needs to be made (which is why one exists: "minor").

You're right, Michael. I don't know why I balked at that. Maybe I was still thinking that you wanted a special legal term to describe a child as a "potential citizen," but that's not what you said. So, I stand corrected.

I wrote, "Where did I state that the child has rights but cannot exercise them? I said that a child has rights to the extent that he can exercise them." You replied,

And if that extent does not allow him to exercise his rights? He has them and cannot exercise them. I'm confused. I don't understand your logic here.

What I meant is that a child can only have the right to do something that he is capable of doing. If he is not capable of doing it, then it doesn't make sense to say that he has the right to do it. For example, it wouldn't make sense to say that a baby has the right to vote, or a two-year old, the right to drive a car. Similarly, it wouldn't make sense to say that a toddler has the right to the same freedom of action as an adult, since he doesn't have the capacity to exercise it.

I wrote and you responded: Thus, in your understanding, a baby without legal guardians nearby has no right to life.
No, I didn't say that. He has a right to be supported by the parents, which is simply another way of saying that his biological parents are obligated to support him. They don't lose that obligation simply because they've deserted him for greener pastures. They still have the responsibility to reunite with him and to assume the proper role of a parent.
There are many reasons why a parent might not be near (abduction, death, etc.) - not just desertion and "greener pastures." My intention in this discussion is to hone a legal idea with precision, not weave all over the place with speculations.

But if you want to do it that way, what about the death of his parents? In your explanation, apparently his right to life extinguishes with their death (except for a right against aggression).

I was taking it for granted that if the child is abducted, such that the parents cannot support him, then they are not defaulting on their parental obligations and are not therefore violating the child's right to their support. Similarly, if the parents die, the child's right to their support is no longer an issue. Does the child have a right to be supported by someone else in the event of the parent's death? In other words, is someone else obligated to assume the responsibility for raising the orphaned child? Not if no one else has chosen to. But someone undoubtedly would choose to accept that responsibility, as orphanages have traditionally done. So, I don't see it as a problem.

That is one of the twists of logic I don't like to use. The mother is not choosing to have a child. She is choosing to not undergo surgery.
Which amounts to the same thing; she is choosing to have the child rather than abort it.
Wrong. You didn't understand what I was saying, but I don't think you wanted to. So let's just drop this point, with one minor comment. You wrote:
Volition is still involved! You could just as well argue that all the deadbeat parents have to do is not act (to support their child) and nature will kill their child for them - which means that they didn't "choose" their child's death; nature chose it. If you wouldn't say this in the case of the deadbeat parents, then don't say it in the case of the woman who chooses to give birth rather than terminate her pregnancy.
We are talking about legal issues here. Of course nature takes its course in starvation, but the deadbeat parents have a legal obligation that they choose not to observe. A pregnant woman has no such legal obligation to bring her baby to term. She can simply not choose anything at all and it will happen over time. I stand by my distinction.

The difference in legal obligation is irrelevant. The purpose of the analogy was simply to illustrate that in both cases, the moral agents "chose" to let nature take its course. In other words, if you would say that the deadbeat parents "chose" to let their child starve to death, even though it was nature that ultimately caused the child's death, then you must also say that the pregnant woman "chose" to let her child be born, even though it was nature that ultimately caused the birth.

- Bill

Post 113

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 11:45pm

Bill,

Thank you further - greatly. I was already satisfied, but you made even clearer statements of what I wanted someone at least to say, which is what I am after.

Some of the implications of the Objectivist position sound really ugly. If they are not stated clearly, analyzed and looked at from many angles, and then if fully accepted by most Objectivists in their "ugly" form, and then convincing arguments designed for that state, this will be a constant strain on trying to spread Objectivism. This is because the world will not be won by hairsplitting to step around an ugly implication. People stop listening.

On the first point, we are both saying the same thing with different words and looking at it from a different perspective, so if you really want to clarify the semantics, I will, but for me, I see no need (the conflicting rights thing but with obligation thrown in). We essentially agree from what I see.

On the second point, I was very pleased with your statement:

The right of the child to be supported by the parents implies a corresponding obligation of the parents to support him or her. There is no need to posit a parental obligation in addition to the child's right to receive parental support. An obligation is a necessary correlate of a right. The latter could not exist without the former.

This is one fundamental individual right, at least, (i.e., not a contractual right) where it is admitted that an obligation on another human being is created. Fundamental rights are understood by many people I have talked to as meaning complete freedom of action for the individual with no obligations placed on him, except the obligation to not interfere with the rights of others.

One of those twists of logic I don't like could call parental obligation "not interfering" with the child's right, but it is twisting the word in an obvious manner. The nature of the obligation is different. Parental obligation is an obligation to act, not to refrain from acting. The frank admission of this by Objectivists will go far in acceptance of the philosophy by "normal" people.

The following statement was very clear and almost clear enough for what I am getting at:

Does the child have a right to be supported by someone else in the event of the parent's death? In other words, is someone else obligated to assume the responsibility for raising the orphaned child? Not if no one else has chosen to.

I presume you are making a difference between the right to be supported and the right to life. That needs to be fleshed out more and this formulation needs to be applied to the right to life of the child - in simple language. (Not suddenly substituting the word "life" for the term "be supported.") Still, this is about as close as I have seen a clear formulation on this.

There is one problem though. Once again, stating that you don't see a problem and discussing rights are two different things. Legal experts would and do disagree with your opinion that there is no problem. That's why there are tons of laws on the books. Refusing to acknowledge the problem is losing by default. You walk away from the argument and they end up making the laws.

Try convincing people to change those laws, too, by telling them that the issue is not a real problem. If one asks what the legal protection is for a kid who falls into a situation where he loses his legal rights, but in practice resources are available so he can avoid suffering a preventable death, you respond by saying, "Well, no legal protection is possible for him. But that's not a real problem. Somebody somehow will care for him." (Or, close your eyes altogether and say there are no homeless children in America at all...)

See how many votes you will get with that. I see no social change anywhere coming from that posture. I see that as a solid recipe for failure. It doesn't come any better than that for guaranteeing that the status quo will remain the same.

But I don't have the solution so far, either.

On the selling the philosophy angle, I do know that people in the society we live in will not accept the right for society to be indifferent to the point of not providing legal protection for all children, irrespective of their situations. If change is intended, this is an issue that needs to be clearly defined in simple language ("no right exists" of "the right stops existing" is simple enough) and convincing arguments need to be developed. Otherwise, people will reject Objectivism and stay in churches or wherever they go where such things are taken seriously.

That's what they do.

On a personal basis, I'm still not convinced this issue is so simple. Saying that a child separated from his parents has rights because his inaccessible parents have obligations sidesteps the survival thing completely. You may find it to be satisfactory logic-wise but I no longer do. Life used to be a whole lot simpler for me back when I knew all the answers to everything.

On the choice of the pregnant woman, we are not on the same page at all. As I said, I don't see a willingness to understand (once again appealing to "irrelevance" of legal issues when we are discussing rights), so that line will be fruitless to continue discussing.

Thank you for your observations, though. They are very helpful toward getting the issue clearly stated without speculations, platitudes and smoke-screens.

Michael

Post 114

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 2:06am

I wrote, "The right of the child to be supported by the parents implies a corresponding obligation of the parents to support him or her. There is no need to posit a parental obligation in addition to the child's right to receive parental support. An obligation is a necessary correlate of a right. The latter could not exist without the former." Michael replied,

This is one fundamental individual right, at least, (i.e., not a contractual right) where it is admitted that an obligation on another human being is created. Fundamental rights are understood by many people I have talked to as meaning complete freedom of action for the individual with no obligations placed on him, except the obligation to not interfere with the rights of others.

Okay, but I was simply making the point that all rights imply an obligation of some sort on the part of those whose responsibility it is to respect them. In other words, you cannot have a right of any kind without a corresponding obligation to respect it, whether it's the right of a child to be supported by its parents or the right of a person to freedom of action.

One of those twists of logic I don't like could call parental obligation "not interfering" with the child's right, but it is twisting the word in an obvious manner.
Well, you could say that the parent is obligated not to violate the child's right to parental support by neglecting his or her needs.
The nature of the obligation is different. Parental obligation is an obligation to act, not to refrain from acting. The frank admission of this by Objectivists will go far in acceptance of the philosophy by "normal" people.

Perhaps, but one also has an obligation to act (not just to refrain from acting) in the fulfillment of a contractual obligation voluntarily undertaken. This obligation to act (rather than simply to refrain from acting) is required in order not to violate another person's right to freedom of action. Similarly, the obligation to act on behalf of one's child is required in order not to violate the child's right to life. By choosing to bring a helpless child into the world, one assumes the responsibility of caring for him.

The following statement was very clear and almost clear enough for what I am getting at:
Does the child have a right to be supported by someone else in the event of the parent's death? In other words, is someone else obligated to assume the responsibility for raising the orphaned child? Not if no one else has chosen to.
I presume you are making a difference between the right to be supported and the right to life. That needs to be fleshed out more and this formulation needs to be applied to the right to life of the child - in simple language. (Not suddenly substituting the word "life" for the term "be supported.") Still, this is about as close as I have seen a clear formulation on this.

In this context, "the right to life" means the right of the child to be supported by the parents but not the right to be supported by anyone else who does not choose to do so, as well as, of course, the right not be harmed by others. The problem with saying that the child has a right to be supported not only by the parents but also by anyone else if the parents are not around to do so, is that in the absence of someone else's willingness to adopt the child and care for him, it is impossible to assign that responsibility to anyone in particular. Since you can't say that responsibility for supporting the abandoned child devolves upon everyone else, you can't say that it devolves upon anyone else, because (in the absence of someone's voluntarily assuming that responsibility) you have no criterion by which to assign responsibility to one person rather than to another.

There is one problem though. Once again, stating that you don't see a problem and discussing rights are two different things. Legal experts would and do disagree with your opinion that there is no problem. That's why there are tons of laws on the books. Refusing to acknowledge the problem is losing by default. You walk away from the argument and they end up making the laws.

I don't think you can use that argument, because these same "experts" will tell you that we can't have laissez-faire capitalism on the grounds that the poor will be worse off than they are now. What you're using here is a fallacious argument from authority. What needs to be shown is why these "legal experts" make such a claim, so that their reasoning can be evaluated. Besides, the idea that people should be forced to provide for the needs of abandoned children, because charitable organizations cannot be trusted to do so is tantamount to sanctioning involuntary servitude - to making some people slaves to the needs of others. You cannot justify slavery by citing the opinions of "legal experts."

Try convincing people to change those laws, too, by telling them that the issue is not a real problem. If one asks what the legal protection is for a kid who falls into a situation where he loses his legal rights,
Correction: he doesn't lose his legal rights. If his parents desert him, he still has a right to be supported by them. If they die, he has no right to be supported by anyone else who doesn't choose to do so. In neither case, does he lose his legal rights.
but in practice resources are available so he can avoid suffering a preventable death, you respond by saying, "Well, no legal protection is possible for him. But that's not a real problem. Somebody somehow will care for him." (Or, close your eyes altogether and say there are no homeless children in America at all...)

In a free society, in which the state didn't coerce people into providing for the needs of others, there would most likely be charitable organizations who would voluntarily support orphaned or abandoned children. But even in the unlikely event that there were not, it would still be morally wrong to enslave some people in order to provide for the needs of others. Remember, involuntary servitude is against the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as a violation of the right to liberty.

See how many votes you will get with that. I see no social change anywhere coming from that posture. I see that as a solid recipe for failure. It doesn't come any better than that for guaranteeing that the status quo will remain the same.

I think that a principled opposition to slavery and an unqualified support for the right to freedom of action is an attractive position, but it has to be given a proper, philosophical defense.

On the selling the philosophy angle, I do know that people in the society we live in will not accept the right for society to be indifferent to the point of not providing legal protection for all children, irrespective of their situations.

"Society" (whatever that term is supposed to designate) has no right to enslave its members on behalf of other people's needs. That idea - "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs" - has already been tried and has led to some of the greatest atrocities in human history.

If change is intended, this is an issue that needs to be clearly defined in simple language ("no right exists" of "the right stops existing" is simple enough) and convincing arguments need to be developed.

They already have! Read the Objectivist literature.

Otherwise, people will reject Objectivism and stay in churches or wherever they go where such things are taken seriously.

Michael, I can't believe you're saying this. You are ignoring the entire Objectivist philosophy! You're talking as if you had never heard of it or were scarcely familiar with it. The arguments are already here; Ayn Rand has made them. If you don't agree, then I don't see much point in continuing this discussion. I'm certainly not going to convince you, if Rand didn't.

On a personal basis, I'm still not convinced this issue is so simple. Saying that a child separated from his parents has rights because his inaccessible parents have obligations sidesteps the survival thing completely. You may find it to be satisfactory logic-wise but I no longer do. Life used to be a whole lot simpler for me back when I knew all the answers to everything.

Well, apparently, you never did, because you're acting as if you'd never heard of Objectivism.

On the choice of the pregnant woman, we are not on the same page at all. As I said, I don't see a willingness to understand (once again appealing to "irrelevance" of legal issues when we are discussing rights), so that line will be fruitless to continue discussing.

You don't see a willingness to understand?! You are accusing me of evasion?! That's pretty funny, Michael!

Have a nice day.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 4/07, 2:09am)

Post 115

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 2:58am

Bill,

I'm sorry I answered your last post. Instead of reasoned responses, all you did was repeat the party line and get hostile.

btw - I know Objectivism pretty thoroughly.

Why do you wish to shut your eyes to the fact that something needs to be improved? Something ain't working? Something is keeping people away?

Rand's works have sold around 40 million copies (about 1/2 million per year), yet the membership in Objectivist organizations does not grow percentage-wise according to the same ratio. How many people do you suppose belong to Objectivist organizations worldwide? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Fifty thousand? All that in 50 years? Any corner church grows faster than that.

And instead of operating according to the capitalism preached, most all Objectivist organizations are essentially charity organizations maintained by private donations and generate precious little profit. (Call that capitalism if you like. I don't. Neither did Rand operate that way.)

Is all this because people are simply too evil to accept the ideas or is there something that could be improved? Maybe something people look for but do not find in Objectivism the way it is now - and they find it elsewhere? Ever hear of a concept called the competition?

(Ah! I forgot... the Objectivist literature does it all. No need to think anymore. Frankly, though, I agree that the literature has done a wonderful job in light of the typically rude and hair-picking manner Objectivism is usually promoted by Objectivist experts. For the record, I think publishers promote Objectivism far better than Objectivists do. They sell it.)

I mentioned that "normal" people (meaning people not intimate with Objectivism) would prefer to stay in churches than migrate to a philosophy that ignores certain real-life problems that they hold in high value (like children, family, etc.) and belittles efforts to grapple with them. You just now did it too. You crossed the line to preferring to continue to ignore the problem (and suddenly most of what I was trying to say), backing up to repeating well-worn phrases from the literature, and now are starting to belittle the effort to "chew" on an idea.

Fine. I have no idea what brought than on, but it is time to stop. This ain't going anywhere anymore.

It was a good discussion for a while, though. Thank you for that. See you around.

Michael

Post 116

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 8:26am

Bill, your posts have been right on the mark.

Objectivism is not a movement to be sold. Its success is not measured by how many people belong to organizations or the websites we like to wank off in. Comparing it to the growth of other membership driven movements is meaningless.

regards

John

Post 117

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 10:03am

Bill, your posts have been right on the mark.

Objectivism is not a movement to be sold. Its success is not measured by how many people belong to organizations or the websites we like to wank off in. Comparing it to the growth of other membership driven movements is meaningless.

Thanks, John. I have no problem with selling Objectivism, but how do you sell a philosophy by corrupting its ideals? What are you selling when you do that? I don't know what Michael is thinking when he suggests, in so many words, that Objectivism should incorporate a moral obligation to care for other people's orphaned children and that it should support the government's right to force us to do so. He apparently wants to compromise the principles of Objectivism in order to make them more acceptable to the average altruist/collectivist. In other words, compromise your integrity in order to gain popularity. Howard Roark would turn over in his grave!

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 4/07, 1:10pm)

Post 118

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 10:18am

Everyone was certain that Someone would do it; but it was Nobody who stepped up to the plate; and that was just the way it was.

Post 119

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 10:39am