"The basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man's right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness - which means..." - Ayn Rand
"The basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man's right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness - which means: man's right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself...." - Ayn Rand
So straight forward.
So true. Rights are universal. It is unfortunate that our government is failing to protect those rights even though founded upon the premise and instituted for that purpose. However, your comment begs a few questions; does America have a responsibility and capacity to police the world and enforce those rights for all, not just its citizens? Can we sit idly by? Is it enough just to recognize those rights as universal human rights, work diplomatically to push other governments, or should we bring everyone here regardless of unfortunate implications, even though our own government is failing to protect the rights of its own population of citizens?
The history of the world does not bode well for a near future time when all will be free to exercise their rights while we are daily losing more of ours... We were that shining city on a hill, but are we still? and if not, can we regain what we have lost?
Respectfully,
O.A.
But as the individual has no obligation to others nor any right to obligate others to his service, neither does the nation. Rand stated that governments or nations that don't operate as an Objective proper one is an outlaw nation, and in that, that nation does not respect individual rights, that another could attack and bring down if it's in that nation's benefit, there is no obligation to do so. But for myself there must be three conditions--1) Individual rights are not respected and enforced and any action would serve to factually advance individual rights, 2) Such action is in the interest and benefit of the attacking nation, and 3) There is an observable rational basis of a factual danger.
Should we bring others here that are under the thumb of an outlaw or rogue government? We have no obligation to do so. Should they escape and travel to here, we have no right to infringe on their freedom to travel to anywhere they desire, but we owe them nothing.
But the big issue to me is your last; while we allow our government to spend our wealth and the lives of our men messing with other countries with the delusion that we are assisting the men of those countries, or that those countries offer some unsubstantiated existential threat to us, and at the same time ignore what our government is doing to our individual rights--that is so contradictory that it approaches insanity--far beyond irrational. I fear that our 'shine' has never been more than cheap gilding, except for a very brief moment around the founding.
Good answers. :) Since we owe someone that "escapes here" nothing, how do you propose we stop politicians from taking from us by force and giving to those we owe nothing? I have been waiting a lifetime for objecivist principles to be adopted... or even just to see the welfare state show permanent signs of rollback. I am not holding my breath.
I would be a bit more generous on the duration, or periods of time our nation was a shining example. Though far from perfect, we were (unlike other nations), actually making positive progress towards unique founding ideals and equality of opportunity for all until recently. The same can be said about our past economic history. Over time multitudes of people from all over the world, as well as native born Americans benefited and were elevated from abject poverty. Many immigrants still come here for the "American dream."
Perhaps I am just too nostalgic and fond of the America of my youth and my understanding of it prior...
Great talking to you,
O.A.
I don't have confidence in any of it, but I can still live my life that way and probably pay a hefty price along the way.