Coase v. Rand

Michael,

You write: "Most Objectivists cannot define rights."

I find this claim strange. Most Randians, not to mention Objectivists, own a copy of the Ayn Rand Lexicon, which quotes Rand's definitions of rights:

(in the context of ethics)

Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. (p. 213)

(in the context of politics)

A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. (p. 212)

In "Man's Rights" in The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand demonstrates why in a social context it is in the individual's interest to base the second on the first.

Would you like me re-post my understanding of the syllogistic structure of the latter argument?

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 10/07, 11:37pm)

Post 161

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 11:54pm

Michael!

==============
Back to the ethics-to-politics bridge. (Which, by the way, you are also strangely silent on.)
==============

Ahh, c'mon man! How can you write that I am "strangely silent" on this bridge?! After all, in post 113, I wrote:

==============
Each man is, individually, inescapably inside a morality -- hopefully the right one (ie. he must act either for, or against, his life).

Men in solitude (Grizzly Adams, Robinson Crusue) will be guided solely by their morality (and they will either live or die, because of it).

Individual Rights are merely the social extension of the proper morality (as the proper morality ENTAILS Individual Rights whenever and wherever men live together).

Therefore, Individual Rights aren't floating abstract principles, but derive -- inevitably -- from the proper ethics (they are the social extension of the proper ethics).
==============

???

Now I'm scared. The Nathan Hawking (evasion of facts and reason) nightmares are coming back. Michael, how can you say I'm silent on the bridge between ethics and politics -- when this very acknowledgment is so clearly and plainly stated by my post 113 quote above? Strangely silent, my ass! Give me credit where it's due, man!

==============
... in trying to arrive at a definition, I asked you a question earlier (several actually) that was completely ignored. It dealt with where in reality - in metaphysics - you saw something like "right to life" corroborated if you remove politics. (Don't forget that even Ayn Rand included politics.) Forget that silly form of arguing, "I am human - I have a rational mind - I have freedom so I can use it - There - Metaphysics" type arguing. I can declare that kind of stuff all day long too. This discussion is important and warrants (at the very least) induction, deduction and syllogisms - on top of observation.

Anyway, you had no answer. I doubt you ever will.
==============

"I asked you ... where in reality 'right to life' is corroborated if you remove politics ... you had no answer ... I doubt you ever will."

I gave an answer, you didn't integrate it. Again, for definiteness:

==============
The one moral obligation placed -- by their inescapable identity -- on all humans everywhere, is to procure for themselves a whole life, well lived (ie. to live happily). The victim, if they fail to discharge this identity-demanding obligation, will definitely be themselves (they will be unhappy), and there will probably be some collateral damage as well (parents, children, spouse, etc).

If humans can live happily, they ought to -- in 8 words, THAT is what morality is about.
==============

In order to discharge this moral obligation (to ourselves) to make ourselves happy -- if we fail in this, we'll end up unhappy, a morally inferior position to all other positions -- we have got to have the right to life. We have got to have the inviolate certainty that the air we breathe is not wasted on an unjust cause. That the air we breathe serves the purpose of perpetuating that which is the source of all existential value: our individual life.

Ed

Post 162

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 11:54pm

Adam,

You are not "most Objectivists," but you certainly did come up with one of the most intelligent posts on this issue so far (despite the inevitable stupid sarcasm).

Would you agree that ONLY rights as Rand describes them exist at all, and that humanity has never based any social structure on rights before the founding of the USA?

Or would you agree that rights based on mystical/altruistic metaphysics/epistemology/ethics will yield piss-poor rights (but still "rights" - as understood in 99%+ of mankind's history)?

Michael

Post 163

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 12:19am

Ed,

You are correct on the first point - I stand corrected. You did cover it. But let's look at the meat of your statement.

Individual Rights are merely the social extension of the proper morality (as the proper morality ENTAILS Individual Rights whenever and wherever men live together).

Proper morality? Here you are placing the cart before the horse. I would state what you said (just the first part) as: "Rights are the social extension of morality." (That defines rights in general.) Then I would say: "The Objectivist concept of Individual Rights is as the social extension of the proper morality." (That defines rationally-based rights.)

Now for the second part of your statement. Proper morality does not entail Individual Rights. Even in a social context, there are many value judgments that do not entail rights simply because only the individual is involved, not his relationship with other people. Ethics as a philosophical area is one thing. Politics is another. Rights always entails them both. But they do not necessarily entail rights in all cases. This is by definition.

As to my question (your second point), you still did not answer it. You talked about something else. Saying what human beings ought to do, or stating a physical survival need are not the same thing as the right to life.

Open your head, put in there that an essential component of rights is relationship to other members of the same human species, close your head, lock it an throw away the key.

Check out Adam's post for the proper ethics-to-politics bridge concept.

Morality (ethics) is not rights. Politics is not rights. The combination of the two results in rights.

Michael

Post 164

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 1:33am

Michael,

Citing Ayn Rand (in the context of politics) 'A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context.'

Such principles go back a very long time - perhaps all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi. But Rand's key insight is that (in the prior context of individual ethics) "Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival." Even in isolation, without any social interaction at all, the individual human would still need to work at securing those conditions for himself - or cease to be. Rights in this sense do not depend on their social recognition - they are just facts of (human) nature.

It is the applicability of this fact even to the isolated individual that for the rational man makes the others' recognition of one's rights a precondition of trade with other men, and therefore (because other rational humans will trade with me only if I respect their rights) the proper (if I am to benefit from cooperation and trade with other men) moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context.

Post 165

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 8:22am

Ed,

Thanks for the endorsement.

Andy

Post 166

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 8:29am

Michael K,

Frankly, I am relieved that Andy left this discussion.

I'll be back when I hear that loud *plop*. Then I'll know you've pulled your head out of your ass.

Andy

Post 167

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 9:07am

�You are not "most Objectivists," but you certainly did come up with one of the most intelligent posts on this issue so far (despite the inevitable stupid sarcasm).� [Michael, to Adam.]

Michael, sarcasm is what I wrote in 157, or Andy wrote in 166. I don�t see any sarcasm at all in Adam�s post.

But I do see some whopper insults toward him and Ed in your quote above. �inevitable stupid sarcasm�? It is inevitable that Adam would use stupid sarcasm? Where is it? And �one of the most intelligent posts on this issue so far�? All Adam does with his post is provide some Rand quotes, with minimal comment, something Ed has been doing in posts in the dozens with a lot of intelligent analysis most of which you have been blowing past just looking for cracks.

Michael, I like you, so please take the following constructively. You have been engaging in condescension and subtle insult through most of this discussion. You start out with mild forms such as �Now you are starting to understand�� As your position in the argument deteriorates, you move to referring to someone�s inevitable stupid sarcasm. You accuse others of similar behavior when it doesn�t exist. You insist that you are exceedingly precise despite that very precise people are pleading for you to understand that you are not.

Jon

Post 168

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 9:21am

In Post 122, Jon Letendre wrote, "The question is: Why *can�t* unalienable rights be transferred? Because they cannot be extracted for transfer, because they inhere, are in the nature of the being. That�s what the Declaration means."

What about this: I own myself. Suppose I say to someone: "I am willing to transfer ownership of myself to you. You may do with me whatever you choose." If I own myself, don't I have a right to give myself away, just as if I own a car, I have a right to give it away?

If I can legitimately transfer ownership of myself, does that imply that rights are not unalienable? Leonard Peikoff once said that the meaning of "unalienable rights" is simply that they cannot properly be alienated - that is, violated - for any reason. If this is the meaning of "unalienable" - inviolable - then transferring ownership of myself to someone else would be perfectly compatible with the Declaration's statement.

- Bill

Post 169

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 9:38am

Adam,

Such principles go back a very long time - perhaps all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi.

Then such ancient principles, in your view, would be called "rights"?

If so, then all you did in your last post was repeat what I have been saying so far.

But if you take the view that they were not rights at all, that they were apparently misguided ideas or whatever that accidently served social organizational requirements, well we get back to the starting point.

Let me be clear. I do not think Ayn Rand's concept of rights are wrong. Your explanation of how she tied the concept to individual rational ethics ACCORDING TO HER CONCEPT is my own understanding. I agree with her, especially as I am an Objectivist.

I do think that claiming that ONLY her concept of rights are and were rights for all time, when history and even present day societies are replete with rights based on other ethics, thus we should rewrite all the history books, descriptions of other societies, newspapers, magazines and so forth and delete the word "rights," replacing it with something else, is a tremendous exaggeration.

It is one of the things that turn people off to Objectivism and Libertarianism. They think that this is just an exaggeration of fanatics.

There is a very subtle point, however, where I disagree with you flat out. A condition of survival of an isolated individual is reality imposed. Everybody is calling that need a right. (How about the right to eat for instance? That qualifies according to this view.) I do not consider a need a right. The right comes into existence in order to guarantee that such necessary condition will not be breached by other men.

The need is inherent in man's nature. The right is chosen by man to protect satisfying that need from the forceful intervention of other human beings.

If ethics (principles) are chosen, even though the nature of man is not, then why in your view are rights (principles) not chosen, even though the nature of man is not?

I'm serious.

Michael

Post 170

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 10:12am

Jon, thank you for defending the value of what I've been doing here.

Incidently, this is the second time -- in this very thread! -- that the interlocuter chose not to bother to integrate what it is that I have said (what's up, guys?). The first time was when Jordan had praised Bill for stating the O-ist take on property rights, and on how it is not commensurable with Coase's cases -- ignoring that I had stated that very thing 50 posts earlier.

Does someone here [besides me! ;-)] thinker that I'm a thinker who's off his rocker? If you do think thusly (ie. your mind's made up about the value of things I have said, and will say), well then yeah, ignoring my lines of reasoning would appear to be the prudent thing to do. Coming clean and stating this outwardly though, would be the only way to "get away with it" -- as that is the only way to preserve both integrity and justice.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/08, 10:12am)

Post 171

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 10:23am

Bill,

Good point about the Declaration appearing silent on the transferability of rights. This is a point where Rand extended the reasoning though (even if the Declaration didn't). On the self-determination of nations, she wrote that folks (in Nazi Germany) didn't even have the right to vote away their -- or any others' -- rights (ie. it's okay to forcefully interfere with folks who are trying to transfer their -- or others' -- rights). The alarming issue then raised -- is how to find the limits of self-determination. The old answer said the limits are always and only other's rights (you're free to do what you will, if it doesn't violate others' rights).

$64,000 question: Are you free to (politically) violate YOUR OWN rights? But perhaps its better asked in the following way: Do you have the right to (politically) violate YOUR OWN rights? This seems vexing. Somebody fill me in, please.

Ed

Post 172

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 10:40am

Ed,

On your question to Bill, so long as rights are considered as a Platonic ideal - a metaphysical entity - then this will always crop up.

Once rights are understood as chosen principles, then the question goes away. Socially, can people vote away their own rights? Yep. They will get different ones and one hopes they like them. Ethically, can they violate their own rights? Well, there's always suicide.

That's the nature of having volition.

Michael

Post 173

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 10:57am

Bill,

I�m not going to interfere with you transferring ownership of yourself to another, but I will say that you can have it back whenever you want it. Similar to my freedom to enter into a contract with a minor, but he can walk whenever he chooses.

Jon

Post 174

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 11:14am

Ed,

What are you talking about? I don't ignore you. I just don't indulge you when you misinterpret or stray from the topic. "failed to integrate"? Geez. You should think higher of me than that.

Jordan

Post 175

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 1:53pm

Michael,

I find that in reading your posts on this thread, I can't determine which of the three different concepts that for historical reasons are referred to with the same word, "rights," you are using in any given instance. The three concepts are:

1. Legal rights: politically recognized freedoms of action (in the context of a specific society.)

2. Natural rights: conditions of existence required for proper human life (in any specific existential but not necessarily social context.)

3. Normative rights: the freedoms of action that would be legally recognized in the social and political order optimally suited to proper human life. (This is the social and political order that Ayn Rand calls "Capitalism.")

So, to be able to address your ideas, I would have to read them again after you have specified, in each instance, which of the 3 concepts of rights ("legal rights," "natural rights," "normative rights") your use of the word "rights" refers to. Could you re-state your ideas in a way that addresses this distinction?

Post 176

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 2:21pm

Adam,

To tell the truth, your question to me about which concept of rights I am talking about is precisely the question I have been discussing in terms of Ayn Rand and Libertarians. That, and the confusion that this generates, is what I want to focus on. Believe me, the statists in today's democratic governments love this confusion.

You said that:

... to be able to address your ideas, I would have to read them again after you have specified, in each instance, which of the 3 concepts of rights ("legal rights," "natural rights," "normative rights") your use of the word "rights" refers to.

I submit that any reading of Ayn Rand on rights (and most Libertarians) has to be subjected to the same standard.

Since the same word is being used to mean - for you - three different concepts, does it make any sense to say that rights do not exist except for the ones being proposed, as Ayn Rand does?

The way I have seen this word used makes the meaning of it - even in contexts as clear as Rand gives - extremely hard to pin down at times. Then there are the contradictory statements Rand has written using the same word - that is, until you do the exercise of trying to figure out which concept she was talking about at the time.

I have several issues with your categories, but I will leave that to another discussion. The fact that someone with your brains is talking about categories at all in a discussion like this means that I am starting to get my message across. Thank you.

Earlier, someone made the distinction between legal rights and authentic rights or something like that. The idea was to say that legal rights are not rights at all, so I balked at what I see as a false dichotomy and a muddying of conceptual waters.

Jon,

I sincerely apologize if my Internet tone has come off a patronizing. My intention was to stimulate thinking in a certain direction. I am proposing for people to look at long held prejudices in a different light, so I have braced myself for a great deal of hostility. My words are meant as encouragement, not to disparage or set myself up as superior. Misfire, I guess. I will work on my delivery.

My remark about sarcasm to Adam is probably true, though, given the level of hostility we have been having with each other recently. I don't know if you have been following all that. But I will admit the possibility that my read of the sarcasm might be wrong.

So to Adam, if my read was wrong, I apologize. If it was not, then my comment stands as written. Sarcasm or not, I highly respect your intellect.

Michael

Post 177

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 2:55pm

"I am willing to transfer ownership of myself to you. You may do with me whatever you choose."

That's basically what I wrote to Carmen Electra a while back and it only resulted in a restraining order.

Post 178

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 3:01pm

Michael,

In reading Ayn Rand, I have no problem whatever telling which of the three relevant concepts of rights she is writing about in any specific instance. It helps to keep the context in mind to do it accurately. If one does that, then there is in Ayn Rand's writings no ambiguity at all.

No sarcasm was intended in the earlier post. Sometimes you post things whose grounding I can't figure out at all, and occasionally this frustrates me enough to give up because things seem too strange. But your writing has given me useful insights time and time again once I do figure it out, so usually I keep trying.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 10/08, 3:04pm)

Post 179

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 3:15pm