Your only rights are what you choose to take action on. There are none, other than those that you choose to have. It rights were some kind of natural thing instilled in each human, then they would be automatic and not a matter of choice. There are whole countries where those so called natural rights do not exist because the government forbids them. The government and others would like you to believe that they can give one rights and not just get out of the way and let one freely choose, knowing that there could be some major blow back it the choice is poorly chosen.
I have a brother who has led his life by the idea that he has a right to life and since he did not ask to be born, society owes him a life. As you might expect, the nature of reality has fought him all the way, in his case drug and alcohol addiction, being beat up numerous times, and several jail time experiences. What became of that built in natural right to his life. The only right he had was to how he chose to live his life, though that gets difficult after faking reality for a long time since he was a wee toddler and at 75 still has the same attitude about life.

I would have citizenship to be for anyone living in the USA who follows the present laws, federal, state, and local. In the boarders, that is the country and the citizens. With some minor help for those incapable of helping themselves, many of the laws could be repealed or modified. Voting should be for those who enforce the laws and not for those who run some kind of pantry of goodies. Considering the fact that mouthing an oath, pledge, or promise is worthless in a time of nearly complete dishonesty, there should be none. If you do not know whom you are dealing with, then do not deal because they are probably trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

The nature of man is inherent in his existence as fact, like properties of material objects. Moral principles, including rights, that guide him in his choicesn in accordance with his nature, and principle of physics about material objects, must be discovered in conceptual form as objective. Objectivism distinguishes between existence and consciousness, between facts of reality and conscious awareness of them.

A right, like exercise of any moral choice, most certainly can be "interfered with" -- by force. The moral principles cannot be negated; your actions in accordance with them certainly are. That is why morality in a social context must be formulated in terms of rights and is the basis for the principle of non-initiation of force and the fundamentals of proper government.

"Volition" without the necessity of rational choice and morality by a conceptual being is not the source of rights. Volition and choice in a "social context" makes no sense without that. It is not the source of rights.

Alone on an island you do not need money. You need language because the fundamental purpose of language is cognitive not communication. Alone on an island there is no one else to communicate with. Using "other tools" alone on an island are not social have nothing to do with rights.

There are no "aliens landed" in the "context of spaceships and all that" in "your city here and now". Whether or not other creatures, if ever discovered, would have "rights" does not depend on speculation about "volition". It would depend on their nature, which you don't know because you know nothing about the nature of that which has not been discovered,

Human children have rights because they are human, to the decree and extent they have the capacity of humans, not a free-standing "right to life" from "volition".

Appeals in Star Trek to "sentience" and your premise of "volition" as the basis of rights are not "fully consistent with the understanding of rights found in Objectivism." Others who don't don't understand Objectivism go even farther in openly and falsely equating it with Objectivism.

The philosophical premises of an author revealed in his fiction are not a "springboard", which when misused this way are only a "springboard" into Rationalism. If someone wants to use philosophical elements in fiction to "raise questions" for Objectivism he should begin by dropping the imaginative equivocations in the fiction, tie them to their meaning in reality, and leave out the Rationalism so they can be discussed objectively.

I disagree. While it is true that in a free society, you have the right not to participate in patriotic rituals, there is nothing in the nature of citizenship laws that necessarily prevents making such rituals a condition.

On the eve of World War 2, Pentecostal Christians in the USA (Pennsylvania, as I recall, perhaps West Virginia) were persecuted and arrested for not pledging allegiance to the flag. That was just one consequence of the collectivism that that engulfing the world, even here in the USA.

Again, however, it would require a pretty deep discussion to determine just what conditions should apply to citizenship, and what we mean by citizenship. Just for instance, I might I agree that no one should be compelled to stand for the National Anthem, but that in order to vote, you should repeat and sign the Pledge of Allegiance. ... just asking, really...

I think that you need to be clearer in step 2. People (in society) have rights the same way that material objects have inertia, that mass occupies space, etc.

"That would imply that rights are not part of a natural law instilled in all humans since some do not exercise the choice due to no deciding to do so or by force from others."

A right is something that does not need to be provided, and cannot be interfered with. You have a right to care for your own health, but you have no right to healthcare. You can choose to ignore the issue of your health, but that does not negate your right to choose and act on those questions.

Alone on his island, Robinson Crusoe did not need rights. He did need language and money, among many other tools, all of which rest on his ability to choose -- ultimately on his ability to choose to think.

You are correct that just being volitional does not give you rights, but it does in a social context, which is what we are discussing.

In our society, in your city here and now, what other entities have rights, except humans? Of necessity, if aliens landed, given the context of spaceships and all that, they, too, would have rights in our society.

Children have rights. They have rights appropriate to their nature, the most basic of which is the right to life. They do not have unconditional rights to liberty or a pursuit of happiness, or freedom of travel, or a hundred other legally acknowledged rights, all of which derive from the fundamental right to life.

We agree that "Star Trek is not Objectivism." Neither is Dostoevsky. We were talking about one or two instances in which a technical problem - in this case of philosophy - was the theme of a plot. The Romantic Manifesto laid a foundation for understanding fiction. However, the conflicts of values presented in fiction necessarily raise philosophical issues, otherwise no conflict of values could exist. The plays of Henrik Ibsen are good examples. Hedda Gabler and Enemy of the People are easy to offer.

Enemy of the People could be used as a springboard to discuss global warming, whether it exists, what causes it, and what to do about it.... because ultimately, someone is not going to like "chasing the tourists away", i.e., "reducing your carbon footprint". The plays of Ibsen are not Objectivism, but we could use them to raise questions. So, too, with Star Trek.

You are alive. You have the ability to be rational. You own your life.

"But Star Trek, like much else that is admirable, is the result of the mixed-premise philosophies of many people working together over time. "
Star Trek episodes vary with the writer. They're not even consistent on silly things like how easy it is to use the transporter through shields, how fast is subspace radio, and the travel time between key settings. It's often whatever the plot requires.

Maybe the worst example of anti-capitalist preaching in Star Trek is The Neutral Zone. If you have seen it, don't bother. At least Star Trek: Insurrection's hollow preaching was the setup for an action scene. SF Debris called The Neutral Zone "a Michel Moore documentary about paint drying."
http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/t...

DS9 In the Cards is a silly comedy that goes over the benefits of people trading with one another. It starts with Jake not being able to get what he wants because his society abandoned money, he says, in favor of improving human life. He and his friend Nog make a series of trades that result in everyone ending up better off. All the main characters remark that life is suddenly improved for mysterious reasons. It's an obvious comparison to the claim at the beginning (even those lines were delivered to sound naive) that free markets do not improve life.

There always are and I suppose, always will be Objectivist wannabees. But they fail to do the reading, studying the polemics, checking the references, etc. Either that or they lack the understanding. It's really not difficult to grasp the basic principles, but for some, shedding the old preconceptions is a monumental task.

I like that.
...and I like how you think and articulate my sentiments about said subject matter so poignantly.

Rights are a moral concept applying only in a social context.

Ayn Rand did display civilized virtues.

And yet on this forum we see the same kind of murky pronouncements with a poor or no understanding of Ayn Rand's explanation.

The Lexicon reference is correct; the claims that rights come from anything alive with "volition" are not, and are not based on Ayn Rand's analysis.

Rights are a moral concept, not a result of a fact of "volition". Morality arises from the need to use one's rational faculty to live in accordance with the necessity of making choices. The concept of rights is the application of morality in a social context.

"Volition" alone does not necessitate or make necessary conceptual thought or morality, which is why man, the only conceptual being and the only being capable of or requiring a rational code of morality is the only being to which the concept of rights applies.

The pop philosophy in Star Trek is most certainly not Objectivism. Objectivism is not whatever someone likes because he also happens to like something in Ayn Rand's writing and rationalizes that Star Trek is Objectivism. Those who are interested in Ayn Rand should read and understand what her philosophy is and how it is so radically different than traditional views. It is not Star Trek and not science fiction.

Dana Perino on The Five just took a hit at rights by declaring that a minimum requirement for citizenship should be standing for the National Anthem.

Mike, Herb and others: This thread is the kind of discourse, civility, and understanding, that will eventually lead to "politics" that reflect existence, human consciousness, and the reality that is presented to us by reason.

Had such virtues been displayed by early Objectivists, including Rand, it would have been much further in reaching its inevitable destiny in the minds of human beings than it unfortunately has.

All should never lose sight of the fact that the purpose of philosophy is happiness - NOT politics. Politics is only what, potentially, stands in the way.

Great discussion!!!

Lol.

Now you understand why "islam" and 60% of the world have no rights...they cannot reason and haven't a clue to rights.

Well said.

Being a moral principle would imply a matter of choice, so that one needs to choose to act for life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That would imply that rights are not part of a natural law instilled in all humans since some do not exercise the choice due to no deciding to do so or by force from others. It there were a natural right, then those rights would be automatic but as Rand has written, one does not get values automatically , especially ones life, liberty, and happiness. Whether rights are unalienable or inalienable depends on whether it is possible to choose to give them up or suspend them. I forget which one of those terms allows giving the up. But it appears that being a moral principle, the choice to give up rights is there by not choosing to act.