What is a Person Entitled to in this life? What Rights do we have?
Posted by XenokRoy 12 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
I have often thought about this question. As I think about I think there is really only two things that a person is entitled too.
1. Death
2. Free Choice
You always have both of these no matter where you are. The consequences for choice may be severe but you still have choice.
Beyond entitlements are rights. Rights are things that can be taken away that a government, or society, exists to protect. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are among the greatest rights that need protection. protection of property both intellectual and physical is the other I would add in.
What do you see as entitlements and rights? What others should be there, or am I even a bit to aggressive?
1. Death
2. Free Choice
You always have both of these no matter where you are. The consequences for choice may be severe but you still have choice.
Beyond entitlements are rights. Rights are things that can be taken away that a government, or society, exists to protect. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are among the greatest rights that need protection. protection of property both intellectual and physical is the other I would add in.
What do you see as entitlements and rights? What others should be there, or am I even a bit to aggressive?
Your notion that there is no coercion involved in the way many large corporation practice Capitalism is as quaint as your belief that someone working for minimum wage at McDonalds is not being coerced. It's all about control. As soon as you use your market position to control customers instead of serving them, you've stopped being a Capitalist.
But you have the right to make the choice to initiate force; you do not have the right to avoid the consequences of initiating force. Those consequences could involve the use of force back upon you, criminal charges... but it is a choice a person can, and should be able to make. An evil choice agreed but that person choice still.
Any objectivist practicing what they profess as a code would not initiate force of any kind on another person. Anyone that would not respond with force when force was used on them would be equally failing to practice the code that objectivity is built upon. (hopefully I said that clearly)
If a company sells you the product it wants to sell, not the one you want, it's not harm.
My bad.
The reason we have law against punching people in the face is because there are people like you who falsely believe it is your right. The purpose of these laws is to state unequivocally that it is not your right, and since you attacked and harmed an innocent person, you must be punished.
Now then, apply that fact to Randism, and you will soon understand why the lot of you needs to be punished for bring harm on others through your self-serving impulses, and insisting it is your right.
The reason we have self defense law is because I do have the right to punch you in the face, otherwise there would be no need for self defense laws. It would be absolute that you never can punch someone in the face.
The only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual. That does encompass the right you specify to protect us from harm foreign or domestic, but is not excluded to it.
No student of rands philosophy that understands it would ever attempt to trample on the basic rights of others. That would be exercising force against them, which can only be done in self defense when force is exercised against them. She is very clear on this point repeatedly, which leads me back to the fact that if you have read her, you have not understood her.
How about you?
"Any other course of action assumes guilt before a crime is committed. "
The ONLY purpose of govcernment is to protect us against those who attempting to do our nation harm, foreign or domestic. such as Randites who think their "freedom" allows them to trample on the basic rights of others. Using your logic, if we see a man with a gun acting in his best interests by shooting into a crowd of innocent people, it is our obligation as Americans to let him finish before raising a hand in objections. To do less would be to trample his "rights".
You're damned straight we act before a crime is commited, and hell no that doesn't limit the freedom of law abiding citizens one iota.
You actually DON'T have the "right" to punch another person in the face. That's how the law works. That's the only reason why we have laws, to present Randites and other criminals from bringing harm upon others in pursuit of their own selfish goals.
You also appear to not understand the discussion of the government that occurred by our founders and their ancestors for a good 50 years. They very clearly worked for a government strong enough to hold a civilization together, but weak enough to allow for freedom for its people. That is why we got the continental congress first which was not strong enough and then the federal government which was, with most of the founders very concerned it grow to powerful and remove freedoms.
Freedom is not limited, but the way in which freedom was used had consequences.
Any other course of action assumes guilt before a crime is committed.
The fact is I or anyone else has the right to punch you in the face. That is freedom. We also have the responsibility to own up to and live with the consequences. Which if done for any reason except in retaliation of force (as rand tought) the conseqences that society applies for that crime to apply. If done in retaliation of force (self defense) they do not.
You of course have imperial proof for this imaginary ridiculous premise. I would say the opposite could be proven true, that the moral are more likely to be happy, but there are plenty of immoral people who are plenty happy. Stating that being happy is an indicator of morality however, is a pile of hooey.
Stating otherwise was one of Rand's biggest failings. How can you expect to be considered a philosopher when you wrap your entire world view around a false premise?
thanks
Kant is selling sacrifice as a moral value and selling happiness as unnecessary. Reasonable people, on the other hand, can objectively determine that happiness is your moral duty.
Those who are not happy are the least likely to act morally. The happy are the most likely to act morally.
There is an old Spanish proverb that states: Because I've harmed you I do not like you. When a person denies or disparages the rights of another, it is unlikely the transgressor will like the victim and it is equally unlikely that transgressor will be any happier for it.
Load more comments...