Why protects rights just against people?

John,

Regarding your post #35, according to Objectivism, the only proper function of a government is the protection of individual rights. Such things as rescuing house cats from trees are properly the function of private agencies, such as the SPCA or other organizations devoted to animal rescue.

There is, of course, no intrinsic obligation to protect individual rights, but there can be and is a conditional obligation to protect them. IF you want a safe and free society, THEN it behooves you to set up organizations devoted to defending those values, i.e., law enforcement agencies for domestic violations and armed forces to protect against violations from foreign aggressors.

There is also under certain conditions a conditional 'obligation' to rescue a small child from a dangerous threat. This obligation like the others is not intrinsic or categorical, but it follows from the fact that a desirable end or goal necessitates the means to its achievement, which is only to say that it requires certain actions, if the end or goal is to be achieved. That's really all that is meant by "obligation" in this context. IF you want to help the child (and, of course, most people would), THEN you ought to rescue him from the danger. If you want to achieve a certain end (e.g. the child's safety), then you 'ought' (or are 'obligated') to enact the means to its achievement.

- Bill

Post 41

Saturday, May 2, 2009 - 11:44am

Bill:

Regarding your post #35, according to Objectivism, the only proper function of a government is the protection of individual rights.

Bill am I take this as a changing of what was your previous position on this forum? I had thought you had argued in the past that according to Objectivism, the only proper function of government is to define rights via codifying them into laws, such as setting up the rules for due process, not necessary applying retaliatory force, but just defining its proper use. You had argued organizations such as the police ought to be private, meaning that they must be funded through voluntary means. I take that to mean the police then, like any other privately funded organization such as a business, can provide whatever services it wishes to provide. No one can tell a private business what services they can or cannot provide, so why are you making this distinction between the "police" and other private agencies such as the SPCA? Why would the police according to Objectivism not be a private agency? Or were you not arguing that? Why can't a private police force provide a multitude of services such as having an "SPCA" department under their organization? I would think it's not a zero-sum choice for them just as it isn't one for any other business that offers a wide variety of services.

There is, of course, no intrinsic obligation to protect individual rights, but there can be and is a conditional obligation to protect them. IF you want a safe and free society, THEN it behooves you to set up organizations devoted to defending those values, i.e., law enforcement agencies for domestic violations and armed forces to protect against violations from foreign aggressors.

Right I understand that, so IF you want a safe neighborhood free from wild animal attacks, THEN it behooves you to set up organizations devoted to defending those values. And the police can certainly perform that function

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/02, 12:04pm)

Post 42

Saturday, May 2, 2009 - 12:07pm

And the police can certainly perform that function, so long as they were contracted for that service.
.................

And if they do not do these services one thinks they ought to be doing, then one needs find out exactly what services they ARE contracted for... and add...

Post 43

Saturday, May 2, 2009 - 12:14pm

Right Robert, so when Michael was asking me what should the police do if they confront a little girl being attacked by a wild animal, I don't think you can give a response to that without any further context. It depends on many things, including what the police were contracted to do, which can certainly include protections against wild animals. And as Bill also points out, the police officers there can also act on what they personally value, which is defending an innocent life from a wild animal attack. So the question of what obligation the police have is not one that entails any intrinsic obligation, only conditional ones.

Post 44

Monday, May 4, 2009 - 12:13pm

Re this: "I treat that second sentence as fact, not just "my view." It's a fact that bad stuff can happen to you and leave your rights in a crappier state, and that such "bad stuff" might include disease, disaster, and aggressors. I have no idea how you can disagree with this, but go ahead and try."

How do natural disasters affect your "rights"? What do you mean by "rights"? Do you mean rights as I suspect most people here would view them, "negative rights" such as those contained in the Bill of Rights, which are essentially the right to be protected from initiation of force by the government or individuals? How does an outbreak of disease take away your right to free speech, or your right to practice or not practice your religious beliefs or lack thereof, or your right to bear arms?

Natural disasters don't affect those rights at all. So to understand what you mean by "rights", I would need a specific definition, and a specific example of how a natural disaster would deprive you of them.

Post 45

Monday, May 4, 2009 - 3:26pm