Agreed. Rights always come with a responsibility of use or they may be forfeited.

i always took that position in any debates i participated in high school and college...define or be defined...win that battle and the rest follows...

The focus on "rights" misleads. Everyone has "rights". But whose rights are "righter"? If two people live on adjoining property, one has animals, pets, livestock, and enjoys the quiet. His neighbor, shoots guns on the property line, and scares his animals, causing them to injure themselves and pets to run away. Whose rights are violated? If responsibility is never added, then anarchy is the only result.

You pick up something few seem to say. The quote is correct, but what is needed is something to add the other half: "inalienable rights and responsibilities". When properly balanced, it should always result in just and equal treatment of each other. Since that never happens, we never get it.

Those who cannot have not grasped the full implications of statement above.

The mistake she mentioned is very common. Most people imagine individualists as selfish. Though that might be correct with our (objectivist) usage of the word "selfish", that word's conventional usage today is very negative (as we all know too well)

I had a planning business for 30 years and finally closed it because my creativity was no longer in the quality and imagination of the product but in the process of approval which is crawling in slime nowadays. Its why FLLW had almost no public buildings except the magnificent Marin County Building. Keep up the fight for individual rights.

That, too. I have seen direct corruption of zoning by special interests. And its opposite problem: the deliberate use of zoning to "lop off the tops of the tallest poppies."

The big violators of individual rights are equal before the law which defends individuals rights. What is horrible is to see the collective grabbing of property rights by zoning which uses the same theory of collective rights as eminent domain. Zoning is a total miss allocation of resources; human and natural.

and those who disagree want something for nothing. -- j
.

I am thinking of other individuals, not of groups. I am thinking of things a large commercial or industrial concern might do, that affects their neighbors. And I am thinking of the abuse of eminent domain, to have the property of one condemned, in order to deliver it to another at a fraction of what the market price might otherwise be.

Individual Rights cannot "run roughshod" over others rights unless you subdivide the concept of rights and assign rights to groups. Then you can have what we are stuck with factions fighting for control of the government to enforce their group rights over individuals. What you miss is that you are responsible for the consequences of your property actions. Zoning is a disaster if you hadn't noticed.

The Rand quote is perfect.
However, it might be wise to remember that there can be no individualism without freedom. The very nature of the individual is to be free while recognizing the rights of others. If you look at it honestly, all animals, in order to thrive, must be free to exploit their natures. It is also true that man is the only creature that has the ability to curtail freedom both to himself and other creatures. Man has abilities far beyond the abilities of other animals and as a result can not only harm them but himself. That is where rationality enters the picture. Only man can be evil or create evil in others. As a result, he has more obligation to control his abilities than any other creature.

Rand is correct and it was John Locke who identified the underlying principle in political theory: individual sovereignty, the doctrine that each person is the source of thought and action necessary for their own life and the things they value. Individual sovereignty cannot be subdivided, it can only be willingly yielded to form a legal system to protect that individual sovereignty. James Monroe wrote in 1835 that the founders understood this and the revolution was the great experiment to test this thesis. . He considered it a success as thinker, warrior, founder, and President.

Love this quote, it is so true and exact. We always have a choice, we just do, it is just what you chose and how you implement it that may make it seem like we don't have a choice. You cannot be free if you put someone into slavery, as you then are not any longer free, as you are responsible for those slaves. The same with property rights, you have the right (until Agenda 21) to your property, but you cannot endanger others exercising those rights, or someone may do likewise to you. If someone does not give equal respect for you property rights, they therefore should be held accountable.We had drainage issues as we are the owners fo the creek at the end. The other properties let the water fun, and it naturally washed out our driiveway, not good,. We tiled the whole property, they tied into the tile. driveway got paved, all was good. At the time, it did not seem right, but nature happens. Our neighbor put cement slabs on his creek bank, quite ugly, we planted trees on our side to hide our view of it, he hates leaves! Equal trade. We have a friend whose neighbor's tree was about to send a large limb crashing into his garage. He hired a tree trimmer who cut all the tree hanging over his property, now the rest of the tree will fall on the owners house! There are many ways to reach fair trade.

doubtful

Ayn Rand is on the same page as our Founding Fathers.

Most champions of individual rights see the collectivist objection, meant to justify turning everything into a government enterprise. But I see the opposite problem: one who insists on recognition of his own rights but runs roughshod over the rights of others. And that especially includes property rights. What you can do with or on your property, must account for the effect your acts have on your neighbors.

okay? This is something self evident no? But then, I guess that depends on the definitions.

Absolutely...
The "Collective" does not acknowledge the rights of others because they want everyone to be the same...one that speaks truth and integrates knowledge is a threat to the collective.

I am Not part of Anyone's collection. Therefore, I must be a threat to them...run, run to your little safe places cause Truth is on a war path.

I hope that everyone in here can call themselves individualists, according to Rand's definition.