Posted on 05/13/2006 5:55:44 PM PDT by NMC EXP
Good read. But it raises an obvious question: What is the source of these "inalienable rights"? Why is it "wrong" for one man to enslave another? Or kill him? Or take his belongings? Rand was an atheist, was she not? So they don't originate from God in her worldview (or mine, FWIW). History would suggest suggest that such a concept of individualism is not the natural order, most of it having consisted of assorted monarchies, serfdoms, dictatorships, etc. In fact, has any nation ever existed where these ideas were fully realized? Is such a state always doomed to fall over into one sort of collectivism or another? Am I just a terminal pessimist? ;)
Man is a social animal. Recognizing natural rights and not initiating force is the only rational way for men to coexist.
History would suggest suggest that such a concept of individualism is not the natural order, most of it having consisted of assorted monarchies, serfdoms, dictatorships...
True. But only because the law of the jungle has prevailed over reason. As to the question of whether a state based on individual liberty has ever existed, some claim Iceland was once as close as a state ever came. I have not studied the claim.
I share your pessimism. I have come to believe the state and true individual liberty cannot coexist. And I am not an anarcho-capitalist.
Man is born with certain rights. If this is unacceptable to some, it is because the recognition of this fact would interfere with their designs on their fellows.
An honest person will understand this after reading Ayn Rand's books.
"Man is a social animal. Recognizing natural rights and not initiating force is the only rational way for men to coexist."
But isn't that just another way of saying that "natural rights" are really just a social construct? But I agree that it is the only rational basis on which to build a society - but man, as often as not, is not a rational being.
You aren't saying that men can't, in principle, live in harmony are you? How did they get from the Rift Valley to America? I don't think you are really a pessimist but, rather, just disappointed that it's just "sooner than you think."
You're getting into the would "man in a state of nature" have or need rights argument. Good question but I'm too tired to head that way.
...man, as often as not, is not a rational being.
That coupled with man's apparently natural lust for power and posessions is the root of our problem. Can't forget laziness. As A.J. Nock pointed out there are two ways to make a living: (1) the economic means (working for what you have) and (2) the political means (taking from others what they have earned). The state is a parasite.
"Man is born with certain rights."
Why? What are they? Is this not just a belief system, for which others could be substituted? What is the ultimate source of these "rights"? It seems hard to come up with an authoritative source without invoking God, an entity in which Rand did not believe. I think some of it is innate in the human psyche - concepts of "fairness" and "right and wrong" seem to be hardwired into our brains. From what I understand studies of behaviour of certain other primates, chimps in particular, seem to indicate a rudimentary understanding of such concepts in them - for example, "If you don't share with me, why should I share with you?" It's an interesting subject, to be sure. I imagine philosophers through time have pondered this very question - I wish I had studied more philosophy. Hey, whaddya know, philosophy may have something useful to tell us after all. What did Rand have to say on the subject? I assume she couldn't have been completely ignorant of this shortcoming in her philosophy of Objectivism.
You are the authoritative source. You are admitting that you can't tell the difference between right and wrong without asking someone. That is the collectivist impulse that has to be eliminated. Rand proved that man's nature requires that he possess the right to live. This is all the justification he needs. Rights aren't bestowed by others. They are inherent in our nature.
Barry Shain's The Myth of American Individualism is a good historical debunking of Randian wishful thinking. Most of her thought is refuted by experience, wisdom, and humility.
Let me guess. When you read Ayn Rand (and I give you the benefit of the doubt) your traumatization at the hands of The Church prevented you from being able to understand what individualism means. Dumb-Ox indeed.
Then tell us what the US of A is about. Is it about the law of the jungle or is it about privileges granted to citizens by the state?
"You are the authoritative source. You are admitting that you can't tell the difference between right and wrong without asking someone."
No, I was mostly just kicking around a philosophical question. I tend to believe, as your Declaraction of Independence said, that these truths are self-evident. I admit that I am not fully versed in Randian philosophy. I do know that many people who have examined it, however, believe this point to be a flaw in it. I was just throwing the question out there for consideration.
It is a good line. Sometimes oversimplification is useful.
bookmark bump
And I would change that.
The Constitution only grants the government specific and carefully enumerated powers as evidenced by Article 1, Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Therefore, if the Constitution doesn’t specifically herein grant a Power the government doesn’t have that power.
The powers herein granted are enumerated by Clauses in Article 1, Section 8. Clause 18 completes Section 8 with To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I encounter many people who believe that if the Constitution doesn’t specifically say the government can’t do something then government can. Actually, the Constitution clearly indicates the exact opposite; if the Constitution doesn't say government can; then government can't.
An added note; the Constitution is not about the people, the Constitution is solely about how this newly established government would function.
I understand individualism perfectly. It is the illusion of self-sufficiency preached to the self-absorbed. While perhaps superior to collectivism, its non-existent account of interhuman relations blinds its adherents to personal communion, especially to communion with God. Rand picked up too much baggage from the communists, like her atheism, anti-traditionalism, bad melodramatic aesthetics, and an overly economic view of life. She's good to read in one's youth, just so one can laugh at one's juvenile shallowness after one has matured.
It's not about anything. We aren't a proposition nation, or a nation with a creed. Otherwise, I'm a heretic or an apostate from this civil religion, and so are many other people.
What the US Constitution is about, what the State constitutions are about, what the Declaration is about, that's a question possible to answer: Limited republican government, with predictable laws applicable and accountable to everyone, and a dedication to justice on a human, rather than cosmic scale. Rand tried to generate an ideological nationalism, which is neither a good idea nor particularly conservative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.