Man's Rights

[realitycheck44 0]

After the discussion in the abortion thread, I thought it might be of use if I posted an essay I wrote a few years ago. Obviously, Miss Rand's essay "Man's Rights" influenced most of the essay, as well as the chapter on rights in OPAR. Also, it was written in 11th grade, so please take that into consideration when offering criticism. I've come a little way since then. I don't disagree with anything I wrote, but I think there were a few points that could have been made or emphasized more. However, I decided to leave it as it was originally written.

The Right To Life

For centuries, political activists have cried out for “workers rights” and “minority rights”, and equated these with equality. And for centuries, people have listened. But very few have asked the essential questions or delved into the nature of rights in order to find out exactly what was being said. What are “workers rights”, exactly? How do they differ from everybody else’s rights? What rights does everybody else have? The same activists that were screaming for “workers rights” are now oddly silent.

Rights are moral laws governing how people interact with one another. They are a means of subordinating society to a moral code that leaves each man equal and free. The one right that triumphs above all else is the right to life. This is inherent in man’s nature. The right to life means the right to sustain and further one’s life. It means the right to take all actions required by the nature of a rational being to preserve his life. This stems from two major principles: that man is an end in himself and that man possesses volition. The concept of volition is especially important when dealing with rights. Human beings have the fundamental choice of whether to think or not. Unlike animals or robots, human beings have little automated or instinctual knowledge. Reason does not work automatically. Most bodily functions are automatic, but the mind is not. Man cannot survive without exercising his conceptual facility- without reasoning- and the right to life is there to make sure he is free to act according to his own judgment.

To sustain his life, man must be motivated by a certain principle. His purpose must be his own welfare. The concept of this morality is applied in a social context in the form of rights. From the right to life, we derive the three main rights: the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. In order for man to survive, he must use his rational facility to gain knowledge and choose his values; then he must be able to act to achieve those values. The right to liberty ensures that each man is free to use his own mind. The right to property ensures that each man is free to act in accordance to his principles and secure the materials needed for his existence. The right to the pursuit of happiness ensures that each man is motivated by a purpose of his own choosing- he has the right to live for his own sake. Please note that it is the pursuit of happiness that is a right; there is no right to happiness itself. Happiness is something to be earned.

Allow me to concretize on the principles above. Living alone on a deserted island, each man would try to survive- to further his own life. In society, this is translated as the right to life, more specifically the right to the pursuit of happiness. To survive, he must do one thing above all else. He must think. Once he starts thinking, he is able to adapt the environment to suit his needs for living. He is also able to prioritize what needs to be done and in what order. This, in society, is the right to liberty. Only after the thinking process has started is he able to plan, until this point he is stuck in the moment. Once he starts thinking, he is able to produce in abundance. However, he must follow through with his thinking in order for it to be of any use to him: he does nothing to further his life by inventing a way to catch fifty fish in an hour if he isn’t going to put it into practice. In order to survive, he must keep what he earns. Thus, he has the right to property. Metaphysically, a standard of life is the only one that makes sense.

The mind, however, cannot work under threat of force. The only way to negate a right is to initiate the use of force. No individual, or group of individuals, can claim the right to initiate force on any person. If man’s life is to be the moral standard, with reason as his only guide, force must be banned from man’s interaction with one another. A supreme irony in the position of the political left is that they advocate, especially during a time of war, that the use of force is immoral. From Vietnam to the Iraq War, they have spoke out against the use of force to defend this country. However, they are the first to advocate the initiation of force on individuals. Whenever the government intervenes in economic issues, it is an initiation of force, and thus a violation of the opposing party’s rights. The concept of force is used only to make man act according to something other than his own judgment. There can be no right to think without a right to act according to that thought process.

It should be clear now that rights can belong only to an individual person. A collective can have no rights. “Collective rights” is a contradiction of terms. A group is merely a collection of individuals; a group itself possesses no volition, for it is only individual people who are capable of thinking. An individual can neither gain nor lose rights by joining a group or leaving another. All people possess exactly the same rights. The notion of “collective rights” (in the form of “workers rights” or “minority rights”) has another implication. It implies that certain people’s rights triumph over other’s; that some people have the “right” to dispose of others, and the criterion for such a disposition is numerical superiority. Yet, according to the laws of Aristotelian metaphysics, contradictions cannot exist. A is A, and it can never be non-A. There is no way for one person’s “right” to violate another person’s right.

This is precisely what the welfare statists do not want you to know. For when you learn the definition of rights and their exact nature, you realize the irony. The people who cry out the loudest for civil rights are the first ones to deny the right to property and the right to the pursuit of happiness. If rights cannot contradict, many “rights” as defined by the left are not rights at all, but rather the aberration of them. There can be no right to a house, job, medical treatment, food, or clothing because all of these things are to be done at someone else’s expense. Need does not constitute a “right”. To say that one has the right to life, but not to keep what he produces is a contradiction so deep that it is hard to fathom the amount of rationalization and intellectual forgery needed to state such an injustice. How could the need of some constitute a “right” over others? The true right to property is violated, yet this is ignored completely.

Of all the rights violators in history, the leftists themselves are perhaps the most dangerous of all. Most of the major rights violations were done in the name of something greater than individual rights. Once people realized that rights were an extremely important concept, they started condemning rights violations. The reason the left is so exceptionally dangerous is they use their false notion of “rights” to destroy the true meaning of the concept. For years the left has mislead the public into falling for horrible false dichotomies, such as “human rights take precedent over property rights”, and “the public interest supersedes private interests”. They strive to destroy the right to property (through taxes and welfare), the right to the pursuit of happiness, and ultimately the right to life, and they do all of this in the name of “rights”.

The left does not stand for rights, but precisely the opposite. So why don’t they simply come out and say it? Why wouldn’t they want to back up their philosophy for what it truly is? Why don’t they name it openly and justify it, if they can?

The answer is obvious.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

After the discussion in the abortion thread, I thought it might be of use if I posted an essay I wrote a few years ago. Obviously, Miss Rand's essay "Man's Rights" influenced most of the essay, as well as the chapter on rights in OPAR. Also, it was written in 11th grade, so please take that into consideration when offering criticism. I've come a little way since then. I don't disagree with anything I wrote, but I think there were a few points that could have been made or emphasized more. However, I decided to leave it as it was originally written.

The Right To Life

For centuries, political activists have cried out for “workers rights” and “minority rights”, and equated these with equality. And for centuries, people have listened. But very few have asked the essential questions or delved into the nature of rights in order to find out exactly what was being said. What are “workers rights”, exactly? How do they differ from everybody else’s rights? What rights does everybody else have? The same activists that were screaming for “workers rights” are now oddly silent.

Rights are moral laws governing how people interact with one another. They are a means of subordinating society to a moral code that leaves each man equal and free. The one right that triumphs above all else is the right to life. This is inherent in man’s nature. The right to life means the right to sustain and further one’s life. It means the right to take all actions required by the nature of a rational being to preserve his life. This stems from two major principles: that man is an end in himself and that man possesses volition. The concept of volition is especially important when dealing with rights. Human beings have the fundamental choice of whether to think or not. Unlike animals or robots, human beings have little automated or instinctual knowledge. Reason does not work automatically. Most bodily functions are automatic, but the mind is not. Man cannot survive without exercising his conceptual facility- without reasoning- and the right to life is there to make sure he is free to act according to his own judgment.

To sustain his life, man must be motivated by a certain principle. His purpose must be his own welfare. The concept of this morality is applied in a social context in the form of rights. From the right to life, we derive the three main rights: the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. In order for man to survive, he must use his rational facility to gain knowledge and choose his values; then he must be able to act to achieve those values. The right to liberty ensures that each man is free to use his own mind. The right to property ensures that each man is free to act in accordance to his principles and secure the materials needed for his existence. The right to the pursuit of happiness ensures that each man is motivated by a purpose of his own choosing- he has the right to live for his own sake. Please note that it is the pursuit of happiness that is a right; there is no right to happiness itself. Happiness is something to be earned.

Allow me to concretize on the principles above. Living alone on a deserted island, each man would try to survive- to further his own life. In society, this is translated as the right to life, more specifically the right to the pursuit of happiness. To survive, he must do one thing above all else. He must think. Once he starts thinking, he is able to adapt the environment to suit his needs for living. He is also able to prioritize what needs to be done and in what order. This, in society, is the right to liberty. Only after the thinking process has started is he able to plan, until this point he is stuck in the moment. Once he starts thinking, he is able to produce in abundance. However, he must follow through with his thinking in order for it to be of any use to him: he does nothing to further his life by inventing a way to catch fifty fish in an hour if he isn’t going to put it into practice. In order to survive, he must keep what he earns. Thus, he has the right to property. Metaphysically, a standard of life is the only one that makes sense.

The mind, however, cannot work under threat of force. The only way to negate a right is to initiate the use of force. No individual, or group of individuals, can claim the right to initiate force on any person. If man’s life is to be the moral standard, with reason as his only guide, force must be banned from man’s interaction with one another. A supreme irony in the position of the political left is that they advocate, especially during a time of war, that the use of force is immoral. From Vietnam to the Iraq War, they have spoke out against the use of force to defend this country. However, they are the first to advocate the initiation of force on individuals. Whenever the government intervenes in economic issues, it is an initiation of force, and thus a violation of the opposing party’s rights. The concept of force is used only to make man act according to something other than his own judgment. There can be no right to think without a right to act according to that thought process.

It should be clear now that rights can belong only to an individual person. A collective can have no rights. “Collective rights” is a contradiction of terms. A group is merely a collection of individuals; a group itself possesses no volition, for it is only individual people who are capable of thinking. An individual can neither gain nor lose rights by joining a group or leaving another. All people possess exactly the same rights. The notion of “collective rights” (in the form of “workers rights” or “minority rights”) has another implication. It implies that certain people’s rights triumph over other’s; that some people have the “right” to dispose of others, and the criterion for such a disposition is numerical superiority. Yet, according to the laws of Aristotelian metaphysics, contradictions cannot exist. A is A, and it can never be non-A. There is no way for one person’s “right” to violate another person’s right.

This is precisely what the welfare statists do not want you to know. For when you learn the definition of rights and their exact nature, you realize the irony. The people who cry out the loudest for civil rights are the first ones to deny the right to property and the right to the pursuit of happiness. If rights cannot contradict, many “rights” as defined by the left are not rights at all, but rather the aberration of them. There can be no right to a house, job, medical treatment, food, or clothing because all of these things are to be done at someone else’s expense. Need does not constitute a “right”. To say that one has the right to life, but not to keep what he produces is a contradiction so deep that it is hard to fathom the amount of rationalization and intellectual forgery needed to state such an injustice. How could the need of some constitute a “right” over others? The true right to property is violated, yet this is ignored completely.

Of all the rights violators in history, the leftists themselves are perhaps the most dangerous of all. Most of the major rights violations were done in the name of something greater than individual rights. Once people realized that rights were an extremely important concept, they started condemning rights violations. The reason the left is so exceptionally dangerous is they use their false notion of “rights” to destroy the true meaning of the concept. For years the left has mislead the public into falling for horrible false dichotomies, such as “human rights take precedent over property rights”, and “the public interest supersedes private interests”. They strive to destroy the right to property (through taxes and welfare), the right to the pursuit of happiness, and ultimately the right to life, and they do all of this in the name of “rights”.

The left does not stand for rights, but precisely the opposite. So why don’t they simply come out and say it? Why wouldn’t they want to back up their philosophy for what it truly is? Why don’t they name it openly and justify it, if they can?

The answer is obvious.

This is pretty good! Particularly for an 11th grader!

You do however seem to take a strong pacifist stand here. I guess I had forgotten that this is a strong strand in Ayn Rand's writings. But does it really mean that all use of force is prohibited. You say above, "force must be banned from man’s interaction with one another." Once we allow self-defense, than we will always be in a state of using force unless and until one individual or state subdues everyone else.

I completely agree with you about the left and interfering in economic activity. Though in this country it is also the right -- just look at the recent bailouts, and they just keep coming, with the latest being AIG. Ugh. What a said misguided country we live in!

[styg50 0]

You do however seem to take a strong pacifist stand here. I guess I had forgotten that this is a strong strand in Ayn Rand's writings. But does it really mean that all use of force is prohibited. You say above, "force must be banned from man’s interaction with one another." Once we allow self-defense, than we will always be in a state of using force unless and until one individual or state subdues everyone else.

I completely agree with you about the left and interfering in economic activity. Though in this country it is also the right -- just look at the recent bailouts, and they just keep coming, with the latest being AIG. Ugh. What a said misguided country we live in!

Regarding force, the next step in the philosophical chain is defining a government to be instituted among men, which places the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Regarding force, the next step in the philosophical chain is defining a government to be instituted among men, which places the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

Only if the government is just.

ruveyn

[Arnold 0]

Regarding force, the next step in the philosophical chain is defining a government to be instituted among men, which places the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

Only if the government is just.

ruveyn

Objective, means just.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

Regarding force, the next step in the philosophical chain is defining a government to be instituted among men, which places the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

Only if the government is just.

ruveyn

Objective, means just.

Yes. Though I think Ruveyn was referring to the definition of government here, as "instituted among men," and not the definition of force under "objective" control. Arnold was equating "instituted among men" as necessarily leading to "objective" or "just" control, which of course leaves out some important qualifications of how the government is created. I think what is meant is that a government created by men on objective principles, will then use force under objective, and thus just, controls.

Of course this is not pacifism. I actually think the use of force is a good thing, and that the problem with our foreign policy and this world is that we have not used enough force. But I know that is a controversial statement -- and you know me, I dont shy away from controversy! I do think that Realitycheck is probably right, that Ayn Rand did argue for more restrictions on force than someone like me might like. It is an interesting argument, and certainly something worth pondering.

[realitycheck44 0]

You do however seem to take a strong pacifist stand here. I guess I had forgotten that this is a strong strand in Ayn Rand's writings. But does it really mean that all use of force is prohibited. You say above, "force must be banned from man’s interaction with one another." Once we allow self-defense, than we will always be in a state of using force unless and until one individual or state subdues everyone else.

Miss Aspirant, you again seem to have mis-read what I wrote. I certainly did not take a pacifist stand. I will defend to the death my rights. But I also know that it is selfish not to initiate force against others. The reason that the essay focuses on the idea that it is immoral to INITIATE the use of force. It is not however, immoral to use force in self-defense. Also, I challenge the notion that we will be in a constant state of using force, which is what you seem to imply. Why would one individual or state need to subdue everyone else? This is not a war of all versus all we are talking about. When was the last time you were physically attacked? I certainly am not in a using force all the time - indeed, these times are so rare that I hardly count them at all.

Secondly, the essay did not talk about the proper function of government. The main function of government is to defend the people so that they rarely need to use force in self-defense. The police and judiciary systems exists so that people do not need to use force domestically except in extreme situations. The military exists to protect citizens from foreign enemies. So yes, force is being used, but not constantly for most of the people.

(PS: I wrote this reply a while ago, but ran out of time to actually post it.)

[Genius Aspirant 0]

You do however seem to take a strong pacifist stand here. I guess I had forgotten that this is a strong strand in Ayn Rand's writings. But does it really mean that all use of force is prohibited. You say above, "force must be banned from man’s interaction with one another." Once we allow self-defense, than we will always be in a state of using force unless and until one individual or state subdues everyone else.

Miss Aspirant, you again seem to have mis-read what I wrote. I certainly did not take a pacifist stand. I will defend to the death my rights. But I also know that it is selfish not to initiate force against others. The reason that the essay focuses on the idea that it is immoral to INITIATE the use of force. It is not however, immoral to use force in self-defense. Also, I challenge the notion that we will be in a constant state of using force, which is what you seem to imply. Why would one individual or state need to subdue everyone else? This is not a war of all versus all we are talking about. When was the last time you were physically attacked? I certainly am not in a using force all the time - indeed, these times are so rare that I hardly count them at all.

Secondly, the essay did not talk about the proper function of government. The main function of government is to defend the people so that they rarely need to use force in self-defense. The police and judiciary systems exists so that people do not need to use force domestically except in extreme situations. The military exists to protect citizens from foreign enemies. So yes, force is being used, but not constantly for most of the people.

(PS: I wrote this reply a while ago, but ran out of time to actually post it.)

Oh good. I was concerned that you were taking a more extreme pacifist stand, which seemed odd. I actually think that force is in fact the only thing one can use with respect to most other countries and peoples of the world. I know Ayn Rand had some thoughts along these lines, and I am sure that if she lived to see Islamic fascist terrorism she would have taken an even stronger stand with respect to the right to use force -- not just in immediate self-defense, but also pre-emptively against both declared and potential enemies of the US.

I assume that the second paragraph of your response is responding to styg50, Ruveyn and Arnold, and not me. I was just trying to clarify what I thought was a mistake in what Ruveyn said. I thought I had made that clear in my response. But maybe you understood that and were in fact responding to them?

[realitycheck44 0]

Oh good. I was concerned that you were taking a more extreme pacifist stand, which seemed odd. I actually think that force is in fact the only thing one can use with respect to most other countries and peoples of the world. I know Ayn Rand had some thoughts along these lines, and I am sure that if she lived to see Islamic fascist terrorism she would have taken an even stronger stand with respect to the right to use force -- not just in immediate self-defense, but also pre-emptively against both declared and potential enemies of the US.

You seem to have made many mis-readings of posts. I would encourage you to attempt to ask questions rather than assume. (For instance, you assumed my position was that of a pacifist, even though it "seemed odd" to you.)

We never have the right to initiate force, but we do have the right to defend against it. And the initation of force need not come as a direct attack - it can come as a credible threat. For instance, if I learned that someone was planning to kill me, I certainly would not wait for them to attack before I responded. That's sheer stupidity.

I assume that the second paragraph of your response is responding to styg50, Ruveyn and Arnold, and not me. I was just trying to clarify what I thought was a mistake in what Ruveyn said. I thought I had made that clear in my response. But maybe you understood that and were in fact responding to them?

No, actually, it was directed at you. In fact, it was written before anybody else but you had replied to this thread.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

Oh good. I was concerned that you were taking a more extreme pacifist stand, which seemed odd. I actually think that force is in fact the only thing one can use with respect to most other countries and peoples of the world. I know Ayn Rand had some thoughts along these lines, and I am sure that if she lived to see Islamic fascist terrorism she would have taken an even stronger stand with respect to the right to use force -- not just in immediate self-defense, but also pre-emptively against both declared and potential enemies of the US.

You seem to have made many mis-readings of posts. I would encourage you to attempt to ask questions rather than assume. (For instance, you assumed my position was that of a pacifist, even though it "seemed odd" to you.)

We never have the right to initiate force, but we do have the right to defend against it. And the initation of force need not come as a direct attack - it can come as a credible threat. For instance, if I learned that someone was planning to kill me, I certainly would not wait for them to attack before I responded. That's sheer stupidity.

I assume that the second paragraph of your response is responding to styg50, Ruveyn and Arnold, and not me. I was just trying to clarify what I thought was a mistake in what Ruveyn said. I thought I had made that clear in my response. But maybe you understood that and were in fact responding to them?

No, actually, it was directed at you. In fact, it was written before anybody else but you had replied to this thread.

Sorry, I did not mean to make you defensive. I did not assume you were taking a pacifist position. In fact, as you will see, I made a point of asking about it. That is the point of these conversations I thought.

I am not sure if you intend to do more with this piece, have it published somewhere for example, but my confusion came from the following sentence: "If man’s life is to be the moral standard, with reason as his only guide, force must be banned from man’s interaction with one another." To better reflect your position as you now articulate it, the sentence could more clearly read: "If man’s life is to be the moral standard, with reason as his only guide, [the initiation of] force must be banned from man’s interaction with one another." You could also add in a sentence or two about self-defense. I hope you take these suggestions in the spirit in which they are offered -- to make your piece even better and clearer than it is.

On the government point, now I am confused. You say the essay did not purport to talk about the proper function of government. I was not claiming either that it did or should. That does seem to be something that the others raised. So I have no problem with the fact that you dont talk about it here, and thus apologize for any misunderstanding my post may have raised. (I tend to like to assume that I have not expressed myself as clearly as I should, and thus apologizing if there is a misunderstanding -- so long as I think the other person is also acting in such good faith. I find it encourages more engagement rather than accusing others of intentionally, or negligently, or stupidly, mis reading or misunderstanding me.)

[realitycheck44 0]

Sorry, I did not mean to make you defensive. I did not assume you were taking a pacifist position. In fact, as you will see, I made a point of asking about it. That is the point of these conversations I thought.

I was not on the defensive, I was merely saying.

I am not sure if you intend to do more with this piece, have it published somewhere for example, but my confusion came from the following sentence: "If man’s life is to be the moral standard, with reason as his only guide, force must be banned from man’s interaction with one another." To better reflect your position as you now articulate it, the sentence could more clearly read: "If man’s life is to be the moral standard, with reason as his only guide, [the initiation of] force must be banned from man’s interaction with one another." You could also add in a sentence or two about self-defense. I hope you take these suggestions in the spirit in which they are offered -- to make your piece even better and clearer than it is.

I understand that, and would make that correction. However, if you look at every other sentence in that paragraph, I use "initiation of force". In other words, you took the sentence out of context. While I agree it would have been clearer to right it the second way, I assume I simply was tired of saying "initiation of force".

On the government point, now I am confused. You say the essay did not purport to talk about the proper function of government. I was not claiming either that it did or should. That does seem to be something that the others raised. So I have no problem with the fact that you dont talk about it here, and thus apologize for any misunderstanding my post may have raised. (I tend to like to assume that I have not expressed myself as clearly as I should, and thus apologizing if there is a misunderstanding -- so long as I think the other person is also acting in such good faith. I find it encourages more engagement rather than accusing others of intentionally, or negligently, or stupidly, mis reading or misunderstanding me.)

I'll answer this later.

[realitycheck44 0]

I'm sorry, that first sentence of my last post should have said:

I was not on the defensive, I was merely pointing out that you have a habit of mis-reading other people's posts. And you did assume.

You do however seem to take a strong pacifist stand here. I guess I had forgotten that this is a strong strand in Ayn Rand's writings.

.

I don't want to get into about this. I simply wanted to point out that I think you have a habit of mis-reading posts and making assumptions. If you don't think this is true, then by all means, disregard it.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

Sorry, I did not mean to make you defensive. I did not assume you were taking a pacifist position. In fact, as you will see, I made a point of asking about it. That is the point of these conversations I thought.

I was not on the defensive, I was merely saying.

I am not sure if you intend to do more with this piece, have it published somewhere for example, but my confusion came from the following sentence: "If man’s life is to be the moral standard, with reason as his only guide, force must be banned from man’s interaction with one another." To better reflect your position as you now articulate it, the sentence could more clearly read: "If man’s life is to be the moral standard, with reason as his only guide, [the initiation of] force must be banned from man’s interaction with one another." You could also add in a sentence or two about self-defense. I hope you take these suggestions in the spirit in which they are offered -- to make your piece even better and clearer than it is.

I understand that, and would make that correction. However, if you look at every other sentence in that paragraph, I use "initiation of force". In other words, you took the sentence out of context. While I agree it would have been clearer to right it the second way, I assume I simply was tired of saying "initiation of force".

On the government point, now I am confused. You say the essay did not purport to talk about the proper function of government. I was not claiming either that it did or should. That does seem to be something that the others raised. So I have no problem with the fact that you dont talk about it here, and thus apologize for any misunderstanding my post may have raised. (I tend to like to assume that I have not expressed myself as clearly as I should, and thus apologizing if there is a misunderstanding -- so long as I think the other person is also acting in such good faith. I find it encourages more engagement rather than accusing others of intentionally, or negligently, or stupidly, mis reading or misunderstanding me.)

I'll answer this later.

Good, that is helpful about the sentence. My training has made me particularly sensitive to the use of language and words -- I think there is way too little attention to precision with respect to most things in the world. It is that lack of precision that often leads to misunderstandings - as opposed to mis readings. One could -- in fact many have -- made the argument that the use of force is immoral and should be forbidden. Your sentence suggests that. The other sentences build up to it, and certainly could have then meant what I thought it did. And that of course is why I asked about it. You have now clarified it, and I have made an editorial suggestion which you have accepted -- not sure if it is worth discussing any more.....

[Genius Aspirant 0]

Oh good. I was concerned that you were taking a more extreme pacifist stand, which seemed odd. I actually think that force is in fact the only thing one can use with respect to most other countries and peoples of the world. I know Ayn Rand had some thoughts along these lines, and I am sure that if she lived to see Islamic fascist terrorism she would have taken an even stronger stand with respect to the right to use force -- not just in immediate self-defense, but also pre-emptively against both declared and potential enemies of the US.

You seem to have made many mis-readings of posts. I would encourage you to attempt to ask questions rather than assume. (For instance, you assumed my position was that of a pacifist, even though it "seemed odd" to you.)

We never have the right to initiate force, but we do have the right to defend against it. And the initation of force need not come as a direct attack - it can come as a credible threat. For instance, if I learned that someone was planning to kill me, I certainly would not wait for them to attack before I responded. That's sheer stupidity.

I assume that the second paragraph of your response is responding to styg50, Ruveyn and Arnold, and not me. I was just trying to clarify what I thought was a mistake in what Ruveyn said. I thought I had made that clear in my response. But maybe you understood that and were in fact responding to them?

No, actually, it was directed at you. In fact, it was written before anybody else but you had replied to this thread.

The attacking if someone is planning to attack you is an interesting one. I guess if it is immediate -- that is, the person is in front of you with a gun, or is rushing at you, then I think most would agree you could attack first in self defense. What about pre emption though? Do you think either an individual or government has the right to pre-emptively attack someone or some entity that is contemplating attacking, or maybe even planning, but has not started to attack and there is no evidence that they will attack imminently?

[KurtColville 0]

Do you think either an individual or government has the right to pre-emptively attack someone or some entity that is contemplating attacking, or maybe even planning, but has not started to attack and there is no evidence that they will attack imminently?

It helps to keep the context in mind. We're talking about rights here. If you are not free to act in some way, because doing so would mean someone violating your rights (doing you harm), then your rights have already been violated. An attack on your part could not be pre-emptive, but retaliatory and just. The moment you have to consider an alternate course of action on the grounds that someone would harm you, your rights have been violated. You have been forced to consider, and possibly take, another course of action. That is an initiation of force, in which the thug replaces your mind with his.

Imminence of attack is irrelevant. Whether Iran says, "We will nuke you tomorrow," or "It will take us 100 years to get our act together to nuke you," your moral response is the same: you nuke them yesterday. What counts is whether you have reason to fear that your rights are in danger.

[realitycheck44 0]

It helps to keep the context in mind. We're talking about rights here. If you are not free to act in some way, because doing so would mean someone violating your rights (doing you harm), then your rights have already been violated. An attack on your part could not be pre-emptive, but retaliatory and just. The moment you have to consider an alternate course of action on the grounds that someone would harm you, your rights have been violated. You have been forced to consider, and possibly take, another course of action. That is an initiation of force, in which the thug replaces your mind with his.

Imminence of attack is irrelevant. Whether Iran says, "We will nuke you tomorrow," or "It will take us 100 years to get our act together to nuke you," your moral response is the same: you nuke them yesterday. What counts is whether you have reason to fear that your rights are in danger.

Excellent points, Mr. Colville. You did a better job explaining that than I could have.

[KurtColville 0]

It helps to keep the context in mind. We're talking about rights here. If you are not free to act in some way, because doing so would mean someone violating your rights (doing you harm), then your rights have already been violated. An attack on your part could not be pre-emptive, but retaliatory and just. The moment you have to consider an alternate course of action on the grounds that someone would harm you, your rights have been violated. You have been forced to consider, and possibly take, another course of action. That is an initiation of force, in which the thug replaces your mind with his.

Imminence of attack is irrelevant. Whether Iran says, "We will nuke you tomorrow," or "It will take us 100 years to get our act together to nuke you," your moral response is the same: you nuke them yesterday. What counts is whether you have reason to fear that your rights are in danger.

Excellent points, Mr. Colville. You did a better job explaining that than I could have.

Well, thanks very much. But don't sell yourself short. I was fairly sharp as an 11th grader, but I could have never written such a strong essay as yours then. Plus, it would be two more years before I discovered Ayn Rand, and many more after that before I had a decent grasp of the nature of rights. Well done.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

Do you think either an individual or government has the right to pre-emptively attack someone or some entity that is contemplating attacking, or maybe even planning, but has not started to attack and there is no evidence that they will attack imminently?

It helps to keep the context in mind. We're talking about rights here. If you are not free to act in some way, because doing so would mean someone violating your rights (doing you harm), then your rights have already been violated. An attack on your part could not be pre-emptive, but retaliatory and just. The moment you have to consider an alternate course of action on the grounds that someone would harm you, your rights have been violated. You have been forced to consider, and possibly take, another course of action. That is an initiation of force, in which the thug replaces your mind with his.

Imminence of attack is irrelevant. Whether Iran says, "We will nuke you tomorrow," or "It will take us 100 years to get our act together to nuke you," your moral response is the same: you nuke them yesterday. What counts is whether you have reason to fear that your rights are in danger.

Yes, I think I personally agree with you, though I am not sure if Ayn Rand would. I would be interested in those who think she would agree to use force to attack someone that says, for example, that I would like to hurt you even if I dont have the capability now.

My view though is more like Kurts. I think we should go after Iran immediately -- as well as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. These countries have been playing us like a maestro -- and all the while fomenting Islamic fascists that are determined to kill us all. I cant believe that we just sit by and wait for them to attack us before we wipe them out. We clearly have the capability. How many more 9/11s must we suffer before we finally show these wackos the might of the US military?

[KurtColville 0]

Do you think either an individual or government has the right to pre-emptively attack someone or some entity that is contemplating attacking, or maybe even planning, but has not started to attack and there is no evidence that they will attack imminently?

It helps to keep the context in mind. We're talking about rights here. If you are not free to act in some way, because doing so would mean someone violating your rights (doing you harm), then your rights have already been violated. An attack on your part could not be pre-emptive, but retaliatory and just. The moment you have to consider an alternate course of action on the grounds that someone would harm you, your rights have been violated. You have been forced to consider, and possibly take, another course of action. That is an initiation of force, in which the thug replaces your mind with his.

Imminence of attack is irrelevant. Whether Iran says, "We will nuke you tomorrow," or "It will take us 100 years to get our act together to nuke you," your moral response is the same: you nuke them yesterday. What counts is whether you have reason to fear that your rights are in danger.

Yes, I think I personally agree with you, though I am not sure if Ayn Rand would. I would be interested in those who think she would agree to use force to attack someone that says, for example, that I would like to hurt you even if I dont have the capability now.

Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate -- do you hear me? no man may start -- the use of physical force against others.

To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man's capacity to live...

To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument -- is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. -- Galt's Speech

My view though is more like Kurts. I think we should go after Iran immediately -- as well as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. These countries have been playing us like a maestro -- and all the while fomenting Islamic fascists that are determined to kill us all. I cant believe that we just sit by and wait for them to attack us before we wipe them out. We clearly have the capability. How many more 9/11s must we suffer before we finally show these wackos the might of the US military?

They don't even need more 9/11's. They are winning just fine by our using altruism and irrationality to destroy ourselves.

[realitycheck44 0]

Well, thanks very much. But don't sell yourself short. I was fairly sharp as an 11th grader, but I could have never written such a strong essay as yours then. Plus, it would be two more years before I discovered Ayn Rand, and many more after that before I had a decent grasp of the nature of rights. Well done.

Thanks, I really appreciate that. I was lucky enough to discover Ayn Rand in 10th grade, and I read almost everything she wrote within a year. I was also lucky enough to have this forum, which cleared up many of my misconceptions before they could do any harm.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

Well, thanks very much. But don't sell yourself short. I was fairly sharp as an 11th grader, but I could have never written such a strong essay as yours then. Plus, it would be two more years before I discovered Ayn Rand, and many more after that before I had a decent grasp of the nature of rights. Well done.

Thanks, I really appreciate that. I was lucky enough to discover Ayn Rand in 10th grade, and I read almost everything she wrote within a year. I was also lucky enough to have this forum, which cleared up many of my misconceptions before they could do any harm.

Phew! Close call!~

[realitycheck44 0]

Well, thanks very much. But don't sell yourself short. I was fairly sharp as an 11th grader, but I could have never written such a strong essay as yours then. Plus, it would be two more years before I discovered Ayn Rand, and many more after that before I had a decent grasp of the nature of rights. Well done.

Thanks, I really appreciate that. I was lucky enough to discover Ayn Rand in 10th grade, and I read almost everything she wrote within a year. I was also lucky enough to have this forum, which cleared up many of my misconceptions before they could do any harm.

Phew! Close call!~

What? I'm confused. What was a "close call"?