Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by IndianaGary 7 years, 4 months ago
    I don't accept your premise: there is no Creator.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
      "what more would you want that would persuade you to surrender all that,... "

      There is nothing to surrender. Belief on faith does not provide the absolute guarantee they claim. It is a subjective decree that neither explains nor justifies anything. Centuries of religious wars have been based on such competing subjective faiths in the name of mystical 'absolutes'.

      It is also not the basis of the Declaration of Independence, which took for granted Enlightenment thought. The reason and individualism of the Enlightenment overthrew the tyranny of religion. Not knowing any better at the time, they assumed that some force created the universe, and man's nature along with it, then let it run, which is what Nature's God as the source meant. Enlightenment thinkers did not simply pronounce 'rights from God', with no further discussion. They put a great deal of effort into figuring out what man's rights must be in accordance with his nature. The weakness was the failure to establish a rational ethics as the basis of political philosophy. They were undone by the contradiction between traditional altruist ethics and the implicit ethical egoism they relied on for the right to one's own pursuit of one's own happiness in his own life. This is all completely lost on the religious conservative's false historical and philosophical narrative.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
        The militant religious conservatives who downvote their rejection and who are incapable of discussion do not belong on an Ayn Rand forum.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 7 years, 4 months ago
    When I first read this, I associated Creator with Producer. In my defense, I was reading on an iPhone, in Milwaukee, and may have had a beer.

    With "Creator" in the sentence, I am out before reading the rest.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 4 months ago
      Your original assumption may have been in error, but now you are jumping to a conclusion on too little evidence. I have made that mistake, too, but in this case it is not a valid response. Look beyond the title. Jet is not trying to proselytize, only to share legal research knowledge. Do you also think that man's rights are his, not granted by government? If so, and if you have your own basis for that thinking then Jet's legal research may be valuable.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
        The original "title" is the entire content of what he wrote. It begins with a false religious conservative premise. The rest of it is barely coherent if that: "What more would you want that would persuade you to surrender all that". There are no "Creator endowed natural rights".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 7 years, 4 months ago
        Properly scolded. Digging in more ... Thanks!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
          You were right the first time. Promotion of a divine source of rights was not only emphasized as the premise of the original post, he repeatedly emphasized it in later posts, denouncing Ayn Rand with "As to Ms Rand's philosophy, she's a day late and a dollar short", calling us "sheeple" with "such ignorance is not limited to atheists". Several other militant religionists piled on along with him, denouncing Ayn Rand and her philosophy and personally insulting and rotely 'downvoting' rational rejection of their anti-reason, a-historical conservative 'narrative' and insults on behalf of religious conservatism. They can believe whatever they want but if they can't post with civility in the purpose of the forum, and insist on being hostile anti-Ayn Rand activists on behalf of their 'cause', then they obviously don't belong here.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
    You do not have Creator-endowed natural rights. “But the theory that rights come from God is hopeless. To begin with, there is no evidence for the existence of such a being, much less for the existence of rights that somehow emanate from his will. . . Rights in support of which there is no evidence are not rights but fantasies.” –Criag Biddle, from The Objective Standard, Vol. 6, No. 3.
    https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
      "NOT HAVE CREATOR ENDOWED RIGHTS?"
      Not according to Thomas Jefferson, et al, and the governments instituted to secure those pesky "SACRED" rights.

      Of course, most Americans have been indoctrinated by the WGPM, and thus were ignorant of that fact.
      Their goal was to get the sheeple to accept that there is no Creator, thus no Creator endowed rights, leaving the collectivists / slavers / warlords with no opposition when they conveniently abrogate them.

      " Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as SACRED AS THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY...and is regarded as inalienable."
      - - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum , Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

      Sacred rights include, but are not limited to : absolute ownership of private property, personal liberty, and natural rights.

      NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
      - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324

      NATURAL LIBERTY. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Bl.Comm. 125.

      "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are NATURAL RIGHTS for the enjoyment of which an excise [tax] cannot be imposed."
      Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.

      ... WGPM = World's Greatest Propaganda Ministry
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
        It’s pretty arrogant to call atheists “sheeple” and “indoctrinated”, considering this is an Ayn Rand forum. We don’t go on religious forums and tell their members that they are “irrational”, "credulous" and “superstitious”.

        As Craig Biddle points out, “The idea that rights come from God is particularly popular among conservatives and Republicans.” But not Objectivists.

        Ayn Rand demonstrated that rights do not come from a god or from government. The article I cited above shows how she logically derived her views and how they differ in many crucial respects from the conventional religious view, the statist view and the views of Locke and many of the Founding Fathers. “We need to be able rationally to explain where rights come from and why we have them. Toward that end, we need a rational account of natural moral law—moral law derived not from “super-nature” but from actual nature—moral law not merely asserted but proven—proven by means of evidence and logic. Ayn Rand provided just that.”
        https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
          The reference to "sheeple" and "indoctrination" was in reference to the propaganda ministry's efforts at mind control.

          Frankly, despite it being part of American law since 1776, few "sheeple" know of the republican form, its definition, or its source. Such ignorance is not limited to atheists. Ergo, no presumption of slur was intended toward any philosophy, secular or religious. And any such inference was not intended.

          As to Ms Rand's philosophy, she's a day late and a dollar short.

          Endowed rights, as already defined in American law, are superior to government granted privileges that most have consented to.

          The original question spells it out:
          If you have Creator endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, inherent powers, absolute ownership and immunities, what more would you want that would persuade you to surrender all that, by consent, to be a citizen / elector ?

          As the various legal references point out: Americans have these rights, by birth - unless they consent otherwise.
          Objectivism does not add any thing to the tally.
          But if you wish to govern others - well - that's part of the democratic form and you have to consent to be governed before you can lead the band. Ditto, for special privileges. Oh - and since endowed rights are not subject to taxation, only government privileges are subject to taxation. (You may now see why "sheeple" is an apt description of the millions who are misled to assume otherwise.)
          Do not believe me, go read the law for yourself. I'm not infallible, and may have made a mistake.

          Is being a sovereign American, untaxed, with natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership, inherent powers, etc, that abhorrent?
          And if the government's servants defending your rights want to believe in a Creator, as part of their ideology, is that unacceptable?
          I think not.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
            Re: “As to Ms Rand's philosophy, she's a day late and a dollar short.” Okay, we now know what you think of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. You’re entitled to your opinion, but it’s not likely to win you any converts on this forum.

            “Endowed rights” may or may not be defined in American law, but that does not mean they have any basis in reality. Objectivists are concerned with whether a government is performing its proper functions, and we don’t accept something as fact just because a law says it is.

            Various legal references may support your position, but there are plenty of legal cases and references that don’t. The English language is imprecise enough that many interpretations are possible for even the simplest and most straightforward laws.

            Is “being a sovereign American” that abhorrent? It depends on the legal and social context, including the means that are employed in a “sovereign” society for dispute resolution and protection from foreign invasion.

            Do I care if my government “servants” believe in a Creator? It depends on what their “Creator” is telling them to do. If they put “God’s Law” above my individual rights, I care very much.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
              Putting 'God's laws' ahead of man's rights is part of their problem, but the religious rights is also left trying to defend freedom, when they do at all, with unconvincing dogmatic pronouncement by faith with no explanation. Competing religious faiths are not a basis of anything, they simply concede science and reason to the progressives. Jetgraphics has no idea what Ayn Rand's philosophy is.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -3
      Posted by XenokRoy 7 years, 4 months ago
      " there is no evidence for the existence of such a being"

      I find Rands atheism a fools religion, and this is once again an example of a fool pushing it. I no more care for your unprovable belief to be crammed on me than you care for mine to be crammed on you. Prove to me a creator does not exist and we can talk further on the subject. Otherwise I will respect your views that you cannot prove (no creator exists) and perhaps you can respect my views (creator does exist) that I cannot prove. There is no proof that a creator does not exist, or that he does. There is evidence of both viewpoints in the world we see everyday. You think what we see happened by random chance, I think it had to have a mind behind it in order to occur.

      The failure to respect the view of others that cannot be proven, when yours also cannot be proven only creates a rift between rational thinkers who would on nearly all other aspects unite and that simply reduces our ability to make real and useful change.

      for my own view rights come from a creator; they do so by a a natural process that the creator created. Even that creator must follow those natural laws and those laws would be rationally identifiable.

      There is absolutely no reason to get stuck on the issue of if there is a creator or not. Either way the natural rights would be able to be identified through a rational process.

      Either way, it is possible to look at the randomly generated world, or the intelligently designed world and rationally identify ones own rights.

      Ultimately anyone whom can exist in a free society has to respect the individual ability to seek out and accept truth as can be rationally approached and scientifically proven. In those areas where no proof is available, you have to accept that people will and should have different views.

      So long as their views respect the individual I would rather get along with them. I would rather work together and most importantly make changes to the world around us together.

      Those that have an anti-creator view point and would like to force atheism down my windpipe can take a long walk on a short pier, something like a character from Atlas did at a run.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by IndianaGary 7 years, 4 months ago
        You clearly do not belong on a website related to Ayn Rands philosophy. Go find someone who cares about your point of view. I don't.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -1
          Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
          That's nonsense. The whole point of Objectivism is to ascertain Truth, i.e. Reality. The question of God - as noted by XenokRoy - remains unresolved. Atheists can not prove that point of view because one can not prove a negative. Theists can not compel the action of God (and that even if they can describe their God) and so proof on that side remains apocryphal. But both sides can learn much from each other: there is no harm in re-examining one's fundamental principles. Reality isn't going to change one way or the other, but unless we're willing to consider something other than that we already believe, we are stuck where we are.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by IndianaGary 7 years, 4 months ago
            The point of this site is the intelligent discussion of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, which has no room for debating nonsensical anti-concepts such as the existence of a god. Stop proselytizing and go somewhere else to preach to your choir.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -2
              Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
              "Stop talking." Oh, yes. That is the cry of the intellectual, isn't it? That's the same argument used by the global warming fanatics: that all debate is ended because they want it to be - that because the alternative doesn't fit the chosen narrative that the matter is closed.

              Advancement always comes to those who challenge the impossible - to those who push their own perceived boundaries. That never happens to people who have already decided that they know everything because they never ask the question "what if".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                He wrote "The point of this site is the intelligent discussion of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, which has no room for debating nonsensical anti-concepts such as the existence of a god. Stop proselytizing and go somewhere else to preach to your choir". He did not say "stop talking". Your false quote is dishonest.

                This a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, not proselytzing religion. If you don't like that then go somewhere else. There are many places where you can profess your religion, but this isn't one of them. Your "what if" fantasies are incoherent, anti-intellectual intrusions contrary to the purpose of the forum.

                There is nothing to debate about your religious fantasy. Rejecting faith as incompatible with reason is not an arbitrarily "chosen narrative". It does not require "knowing everything". Stop demanding to be taken seriously and stop misrepresenting people for rejecting your intrusions.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -4
              Posted by XenokRoy 7 years, 4 months ago
              Yes, there is also no room for debating the nonsensical anti-concepts such as the nonexistence of a god. That was my point.

              Discussion here should not go to this subject at all. It is of no point for where rights come from, because rand held that they are determined through observation of reality, which I agree with you and her on. Why do so many focus on the part of her belief (atheism) that will do nothing to assist with the rest of her concepts?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
                For Objectivists, atheism is non-belief in the existence of a supreme being, not belief in the non-existence of a supreme being. And it has everything to do with the rest of her concepts, which rest on the primacy of existence rather than the primacy of consciousness, as in a consciousness that brings existence into being, makes its rules and demands worship and obedience. The concept of man’s rights cannot stand if it depends upon the will of some all-powerful supernatural being.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                  For everyone atheism means disbelief in a god. It is the militant, anti-intellectual religionists who misrepresent the concept.

                  Recognizing the non-existence of a god characterized in particular with contradictory, meaningless assertions is only one aspect of it.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • -1
                  Posted by XenokRoy 7 years, 4 months ago
                  CBJ,

                  First I would like to thank you for the approach you have taken of attempting to explain this further. Also I do not mean any offence. I take none when people agree non-belief or however one wishes to word that there is no god.

                  A little background. I have read about everything Rand has written. I am a huge fan on most fronts. I do however have a complete disagreement with the idea of no creator. It rings of a complete lack of logic or rational.

                  I am not arguing that mans rights stands upon the will of some all-powerful supernatural being. We do not disagree on that.

                  I argue that if god/creator does exist he/she is also governed by the same laws of reality we are. There are not two separate set of rules. One for us another for him.her. For this reason the existence of a creator is of no consequence to the rights of man. The laws created by that creator would govern them as well and therefor can be determined by reason. It also means that Rands philosophy works just fine with a god/creator so long as that god/creator is also governed by the laws of reality as well.

                  To word a bit differently, I do not disagree with primacy of existence, I do however see it as a requirement that some being had to organize matter in our universe. Rand would contend that these two are incomparable. I would contend that they cannot be or the world would not be.

                  A certain quote by Conan Doyle comes to mind, that if often miss credited in Star Trek comes to mind for me. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." To me the world having life, based on what we know, and no mind behind it is something to be eliminated as impossible.

                  I could, but wont go into many scenarios that would allow for this. Many have been done in movies, books..... but that is not really important. What is important in the context of this subject is that man has rights, those rights are visible by an evaluation of existence and no government or other entity has the ability to truly remove those rights. They can put in place punishments for exercising those rights but we all still have a choice.

                  I got typing this morning and rambled. Hopefully it helps us to understand one and other a bit better. If not I apologize for the length of this post.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                    You just insulted us as "fools" for rejecting your faith. Faith is the opposite of reason. Rejecting it is not "a complete lack of logic or rational" and does not make either Ayn Rand or us "fools". Existence was not "created" out of literally nothing, the changing form of the physical universe is a consequence of its identity, and your claims that a conscious being had to "organize matter" is in fact primacy of consciousness denying the concepts of identity and causality.

                    If you had understood "about everything Rand has written" that you claim to have read you would know that and would know better than to swagger in here with your obnoxious insults and religious pronouncements.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
                    XenokRoy,

                    Thank you for your response.

                    I am unclear as to whether you think that a creator makes the rules or, instead, is subject to them. Here you say, “I argue that if god/creator does exist he/she is also governed by the same laws of reality we are.” A few sentences later you refer to “The laws created by that creator . . . “ In a previous post you say, “for my own view rights come from a creator; they do so by a natural process that the creator created.” In your current post you say, “There are not two separate set of rules. One for us another for him.her. For this reason the existence of a creator is of no consequence to the rights of man.”

                    This is an important distinction because the title of this thread refers to “Creator endowed natural rights”. Most of the arguments, pro and con, are about whether rights are “creator endowed”. Some see this creator as the source of existence and the source of rights. Some of your statements appear to refer to a creator as more of an organizer of a pre-existing reality. (“To word a bit differently, I do not disagree with primacy of existence, I do however see it as a requirement that some being had to organize matter in our universe.”)

                    The basic issue, for me, is whether rights are an “endowment” from a creator. What are your views on this topic?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                      He hasn't said anything about the nature of rights and why we have them. He repeatedly insists on theism, denouncing those who reject it as holding a "fools religion" and nonsensically claiming that there is "no room for debating the nonsensical anti-concepts such as the nonexistence of a god", making arbitrary assertions about what "rules" the supernatural must follow, and demanding that anyone who rejects his primacy of consciousness supernaturalism disprove his arbitrary pronouncements.

                      His insults, demands, arbitrary theistic pronouncements, and dogmatic insistence that there is no "room" to discuss rejection of his theism because he claims the rejection of belief in the supernatural is a "nonsensical anti-concept" is not cognitively serious discussion. It doesn't make any difference what his arbitrary views are on the details of his creationism endowment theology.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by XenokRoy 7 years, 4 months ago
                      CBJ,

                      Thanks again for a post that suggests a desire to understand one and other.

                      I should be more clear. I believe that god is simple a man who is much further down a evolutionary and development process. This being the case he is subject to whatever laws govern the existence he is in.

                      I agree with primacy of existence, however how does one define existence? When rand was alive her definition of existence provided a very different view of gays than her foundation has today. At one time the world was flat and had the sun rotating around it. Today we think we are in a flat universe, that some researches say may also be round. We may find proof that we are in a universe that is contained in a much larger sphere of existence. What existence is, is in fact a constantly changing definition.

                      It is possible that a creator created the part or existence we currently understand but is part of something much larger. There are two things I see as true about existence. We have no idea how large it may be, or what it may be comprised of. Everything we find simply indicates there is much more to find and learn.

                      If god/creator created our patch of existence we understand today there would be rules that would govern this creation process, that would exist and be able to be understood by rational investigation over time.

                      In this structure it is possible for a creator to exist who has more knowledge than I outside of what we know and understand of existence at this time. that creator would have to follow the same rules that govern existence that I do in the creation process. Also I, or any person, willing to put the time and effort in could understand anything that that creator could or would do.

                      Furthermore if that creator were to be a perfect being, the ideal man. He would have a perfect knowledge of what was best, how things would interact... and would be bound to behave in that fashion.

                      So yes, I do not see the creator as someone that brought into existence everything from nothing. From my view all has existed always. You me, gold, baser elements... they simply can be structured in different ways.

                      Much as you or I can organize the matter into a house, or a barn.... a creator can do so to create likely multiple universes within universes. I see the requirement of a mind to organize matter as axiom of anything being created.

                      Once the right conditions are created it may be that the creator went his way and let his experiment bake, it may be that some very advanced race (like in the Stargate TV show) seeded earth with life and then went away. There are many plausible ways that things became organized, but it happening on pure chance is one I see as foolish to accept and will not do so.

                      If god/creator organized matter into what we see around us. Very likely through processes of evolution, then supremacy of existence still holds true. It does require something different than traditional objectivism in the definition of reality/existance.

                      I do not operate from an assumption that I understand all that exists, and therefor cannot eliminate from the real of possibility a creator. I can look around at the world we are in, the exact specifications that are required by the distance from a sun, the mass needed to hold that distance, the energy output of the sun, the balance of water, land and air. The mass of the moon to effect the tides... and lots of other factors I am sure I have never thought of, and still more that no one on this earth has thought of as well. Just those I know are pretty hard to look at and say it was just chance circumstance. Those observations say to me that a mind must be behind it, so what must that mind be like, and how might that work.

                      It is this line of questioning that has helped me form the view I have a a creator, and of atheism in general.

                      We likely both think the other foolish for believing what we believe. I think its wonderful that you and I can have a civilized discussion about it, and I hope this has added some clarity on my thoughts around the matter and thank you for your posts.

                      To recap. All matter that exists has always existed. It changes forms. this is true in areas of which we have a well founded understanding (chemistry), I think it will be true for most everything, if not everything. and the creator could be viewed as more of an organizer. I see that creator as being able to be understood. There are no mysteries we cannot understand. In fact I see the advances of science as a method to reach a level of understand that our "organizer" if you prefer had or has.

                      My argument is that a creator must exist in order to organize matter. It does not organize itself into something productive and useful without a mind of some type behind it. That organizer would have to exist, along with existence from the beginning to the end, if there even is a beginning and an end to existence. My personal view is that there is no beginning point and no end point.

                      Existence is infinite, and in fact if there is a beginning or an end the supremacy of consciousness or supremacy of existence debate would then have meaning as it would be one or the other. I do not accept that it is one or the other of the two. If existence itself is eternal and man is also eternal in some form, then existence is ultimately supreme as man must exist within existence. If god is simply an ideal version of man and god organized our world/universe (whatever term you like) he would have been required to create it following the laws of existence. That organizer would have created out ruled of existence but they would be based on the rules as he/she understands them, with perfect understanding of those laws.

                      What this means to man here in existence. If the rights of man are creator endowed then that creator recognized the rights of existence and provided those same rights to everyone within his creation. That organizer did not attempt to alter those rights, but maintained them by natural laws. We can discern those natural laws and in the end it does not really matter if they were "creator endowed natural rights" or simply "natural rights."

                      The entire point of this thread that I obviously made poorly is it does not matter. Either they are creator endowed or not. They are natural rights and therefor can be determined through natural means.

                      Hopefully this has done more than muddy the waters. I hope it has cleared things up a bit on how I define existence. It is however not locked in, as I understand more it adjusts. To me its an axiom that a creator exists; it is absolutely inconceivable that everything that created life happened by chance. I do not believe that an objectivitist view of existence and mine are incompatible. I think quite the contrary, that I and my church are more comparable with objectivitist than we tend to be with much of the christen denomination.

                      I also am sorry that I offended you. People such as yourself that will discuss the issue are not fools. I do disagree with the atheist part of objectivism, but can respect that you do not. Some others that reject anyone who believes existence is larger than what we can immediately see and touch without understanding anything about the view of existence I do count as fools. Some, although a minority, of those that profess to follow Rand's philosophy fall into that category. You have proven you are not one of them, and I would count you as a possible friend in political battles we face in the future.

                      I think it is primarily in the definition of existence that I differ from the pure objectivists.

                      This next section included more religious aspects of existence than I normally like to bring up in a location such as this. You do not have to agree with it, but since you have asked about the creator some I think it necessary to fully understand where I come from in my view. I am keeping it as concise as I can and attempt to keep most of the religion out. It is not my intent to proselyte in anyway. If your interested you will look at it yourself.

                      I think that existence is, that it has always been and that only the form has changed over time. In my belief system we existed as something our church calls intelligence by revelation. I suspect at some point science will help us understand what that was. God progressed faster than the rest of us. He, with others then developed a plan to organize a world (perhaps many of them) in which we could move from a purely spiritual realm to a physical realm. This allowed for further progression, and greater knowledge. He himself went though this same progression we are now in. This plan also allows for progression after death within other steps in a greater realm of existence than we currently understand.

                      Laws which govern our existence, have always done so. those laws are what the creator would have used to create natural rights, or perhaps better worded organize natural rights. We can see those without having to know if a creator existed or not.

                      This is getting long, but hopefully helpful providing some understand of where I am coming from in believing in an organizer of matter and the supremacy of existence and the two co-exisrting.

                      -XR

                      Note: I just looked back over this and can see several confusing points. It may get the main idea of my thinking over it may not. I have changed nothing from my original rambling, jousted added this line. There are some specifics that contradict in there that I need to clean up, but I still think the main idea gets delivered. Its a first draft of something that should probably have two or three drafts before being posted. Not taking the time to do that, so hope its good enough.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                It is you who gratuitously interjected the absurd attack on Ayn Rand's philosophy as a "fool's religion". Take your irrational insults somewhere else. You don't belong here.

                Both you and the original post insisted on faith in the supernatural "creator" as the source of rights, which is why the subject arose. You pushed the subject of religion yourself. Don't be surprised when you are rejected.

                No one said that atheism is the basis of the rest of Ayn Rand's concepts and principles. Rejection of faith and belief in the supernatural are a simple consequence of reason, not a basis for her ideas. Rejecting belief in the supernatural is not an "anti-concept". It is of secondary philosophical importance because faith has no cognitive worth at all. If you don't want to discuss it then don't insist on interjecting it yourself.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
            The "whole point of Objectivism", which is a complete philosophy, is not only to "ascertain Truth, i.e., Reality", neither of which are capitalized. You don't know what the philosophy is, and confuse it and its purpose with both the physical sciences and religion. The "question of God" does not "remain unresolved". Those of us know what we know and why are not "stuck". Endless "reexamination of fundamental principles" on behalf of the irrational and what one already knows is wrong is not being "stuck".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
              You pronounce your own opinions upon me as if you had any authority to claim the products of my mind - of how I view Objectivism. Objectivists themselves are internally conflicted about several ideas. There are also several unanswered questions Objectivism does not address. I will accept work-in-progress, but the notion that it is a "complete" philosophy is a stretch to say the least.

              As to the "irrational" argument of theism, you have what you want to believe, and I have what I know. They differ. We disagree. Nevertheless, I have learned much from listening to atheists' arguments. I feel myself benefited - especially since I disagree with their conclusions. I want to encourage dialogue even with those I disagree with - as long as they remain civil. Calling names and disagreeing is easy, but it is also the refuge of the unimaginative and biased.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
                Re: “Objectivists themselves are internally conflicted about several ideas. There are also several unanswered questions Objectivism does not address.” Belief in a god is not one of those unanswered questions. The primacy of existence is a bedrock axiom of Objectivism (“Existence exists.”). The primacy of consciousness is a hallmark of subjectivism. Philosophically they are polar opposites.
                https://campus.aynrand.org/lexicon/pr...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                  Since Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy, no 'Objectivist' is "conflicted" over any of the basic principles -- which among many other things reject faith as antagonistic to reason.

                  There is always more to discover and formulate to expand on what is known in any field of knowledge. That is not "conflicted", and "unanswered questions" are not among the established fundamentals on which everything else and every new discovery rests.

                  Religious fantasies are not a part of any of this and not serious thought at all.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • -3
                  Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
                  "Belief in a god is not one of those unanswered questions."

                  So you have proved - not speculated, not theorized, not argued, but actually tested and verified - that there is no supreme being? Can I ask you the steps of your test? Can you repeat the test and receive the same conclusion?

                  The reason I ask is because I have conducted a test and my experience - my actual observation - directly contradicts such an assertion. And not only I, but millions of others throughout the experience of mankind.

                  Reason is a step, but it is not confirmation in and of itself. Reality only reveals itself after we take action to explore it. It's a start to hypothesize and reason, but the truth of science is in application.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
                    Belief in a god is not an unanswered question in Objectivism. Every form of theism is subjectivist, putting consciousness above existence. Objectivism’s fundamental axiom is that “existence exists”. Consciousness of any kind occurs within existence.

                    Proof of a negative is not necessary or possible. The burden of proof rests on the person making a positive assertion. And testimonials from personal “experience” are not proof, no matter how many or how fervently believed. Millions of people have “experienced” Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. That does not make them real.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • -3
                      Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
                      "Proof of a negative is not necessary or possible."

                      Exactly, which is why one must pursue a course of proving what may be substantiated. But to take the position that the burden of proof lies only on the one side of the argument is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

                      "And testimonials from personal “experience” are not proof, no matter how many or how fervently believed."

                      The desire not to acknowledge proof stems from protectionism of one's own position. If you would rather argue from a purely hypothetical position - one which denies its own proof - because it comforts you in inaction, so be it. A personal testimonial, however, is the purest form of proof there can be because it is individual and because it required actual work and effort beyond the mental to achieve. If you choose to disbelieve testimonials, that is your choice, but to deny that any such may be authoritative? Such a claim denies justice. It is a lie which if you want to tell yourself, you deceive only yourself. Good luck if you ever have to appear in court.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
                        A good article from an Objectivist perspective that discusses why the burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion:
                        http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/a...
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • -2
                          Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
                          "testimonials from personal “experience” are not proof"

                          You deny the admissibility of the very evidence you claim I must present. The assertion is that that I must present evidence only to have you dismiss it out of hand because of prejudice. It is the impenetrable straw man and I call it for what it is: a logical fallacy.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
                            Testimonials from personal experience are not proof. If they were, then dozens of incompatible religions would be proven to be true, as well as many other assertions for which there is otherwise no evidence. Proof requires objective evidence.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                              And proof requires knowing how to think rationally and maintaining it consistently. The faith mongers insist that existence itself is evidence of their supernatural. With that mentality anything can be rationalized as "evidence", and they do. There is a long history of this in religion trying to hijack reason as the handmaiden of faith.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • -1
                              Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
                              But that is my entire point. You reject the first and foremost source of evidence: personal experience. Until a scientist acts on a hypothesis, creates a test, and then exercises that test, what does he have? A wish only. And afterwards? He has his personal experience in carrying out the test. Look at the scientific journals. What are they? They are showings of personal experiences in testing out various hypotheses. If you deny that personal experiences are proof, you deny science in totality. If you choose to deny what has been seen, felt, touched, tasted, or smelled - i.e. experienced - simply because you wish to deny that it could be real, so be it. But don't try to claim that that is anything other than blatant prejudice. If those do not qualify as "objective evidence", I have no idea what possibly could - and I question that you do either.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
                                What you are describing is neither science nor objective evidence. No scientific journal will publish an article based on “this is my (or our) personal experience.” Acceptance of a scientific finding requires, among other things, that the finding be objectively observable and that repeated performances of the experiment that led to that finding yield the same results. As I said earlier, if testimonials were scientific evidence, then dozens of incompatible religions would be proven to be true.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • -1
                                  Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
                                  What is an experiment but a personal experience? No scientist ever got be a scientist without actual experimentation - doing something. Einstein didn't win a Nobel Prize for theorizing about the pressure of light, but actually proving it through experimentation. Watson and Crick observed the helical nature of DNA - again by experimentation - not just an educated guess. Ferme, Tesla, Edison, Newton, Galileo - the list is long - all personally carried out experiments and witnessed for themselves the outcomes. Then others did exactly the same thing and compared their personal experiences with those of the original experimentor for validation.

                                  Now, if I - being one person - claimed something and no one else could verify it, I would agree that questioning that would be totally reasonable. But if I am not the only one who has conducted the test and my experience matches up with another's - let alone millions of others - it then becomes incumbent upon those who reject my testimony to do so after actually performing the test and observing differently. Cold fusion was first claimed yet successive testing failed to validate and confirm the original findings. Without successive testing, however, there was nothing with which to refute the initial claims.

                                  "As I said earlier, if testimonials were scientific evidence, then dozens of incompatible religions would be proven to be true."

                                  I think one thing that should be pointed out is that scientific tests are conducted to isolate individual and distinct principles only. Religions and philosophies incorporate many such principles - each of which individually must be tested for accuracy. There are literally hundreds and arguably thousands of schools of thought out there and many contain ideas which contradict others - even in their own general groupings. Sunni and Shia fundamentally disagree on the lineage of authority within Islam. So does much of Christianity for that matter. Some Christians believe the Bible to be just nice moral stories while others take it to be literal truth. Some Christian denominations accept homosexuality and others don't. Judaism waits for the Messiah that Christianity claims has already come but which Islam denies as only being a prophet. Buddhism advocates for personal enlightenment and spiritual advancement. Satanists worship an entity Christians and many others claim to be the epitome of evil. There is such a variety that to attempt to lump everything together in one is a logical fallacy of massive proportions.

                                  For a religion/philosophy to be "true" it would have to be 100% reflective of reality. That's a tall order, I completely agree. Every single aspect and principle would have to individually be accurate in order for the whole to be "true". Rand identified many complaints about the Catholic Church that I share with her. What I caution against is the fallacy of inclusion: that because one religion includes several faulty principles that by mere association all others similarly are faulty. It comes back to principles: identify the correct principles and then see by principle of elimination which schools of thought remain standing. But here again, one can not identify correct principles without trial (and error). Thought without action is unconfirmed hypothesis - not proven theory. Experimentation and conclusion are the result of action.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                            Rejecting your "testimony" to your revelations of faith is not a logical fallacy and not "prejudice". The concepts of 'logical' and 'fallacy' are based on and require reason. It is the opposite of faith. You can indulge all the faith you want to, but not on this forum and not by demanding that you be taken seriously.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                        Stop calling people dishonest, lying, deceptive. and lazy and the rest of your psychologizing for rejecting your arbitrary faith. You make the assertions and the burden of proof is on you, not those who refuse to take your meaningless, arbitrary religious claims seriously. Your fervent "testimonials" of your revelations "beyond the mental to achieve" are not evidence of anything but your own mental state. This is an Ayn Rand forum for serious discussion related to the purpose of the forum. It is not a place for you to repetitively intrude with religious proselytizing and obnoxious insults towards those who reject you. Stop it. It does not belong here.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • -1
                          Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
                          I have not promoted religion. What I have done is questioned the entirely arbitrary and contradictory notion that somehow only one viewpoint requires substantiation. What I have done is point out the determination to ignore the claims of evidence which run contrary to a preferred position. What I have done it point out the partiality and bias of one of the viewpoints being argued. If you subscribe to such, your own conscience is your enemy.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                            Reason is not a "bias". "Substantiating" requires reason and is meaningless without it. So does the concept "contradiction". Rejecting your faith is not a "contradiction". Reason is not "only one viewpoint". There is no equality of choice between reason and its opposite. Without reason no discussion is possible.

                            This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason . It is not the place for you to promote faith and demand that it be taken seriously as an equal in accordance with your "testimony" while you smear as dishonest those who reject it. You can do whatever you want to your own mind, but not on this forum. If you don't like that then you shouldn't be here. There are many places you can go to indulge your fantasies.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                    Disbelief in supernatural gods does not require disproving arbitrary claims of faith. Your revelations and rationalizations are not exploring science. This is not the place for you to keep promoting your religion. Please stop it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                Your statements about Objectivism are wrong. You repeatedly misrepresent it. The evidence is your own posts in comparison with what she wrote. Saying that is not "calling names" and the "refuge of the unimaginative and biased". Your religious fantasies are not rational discussion.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
        If you think Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism is a 'fool's religion' then you are in the wrong place. This is not a forum to promote supernaturalism and Creationism while trashing Ayn Rand's philosophy that you know nothing about. Existence is not evidence of the supernatural.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -3
          Posted by XenokRoy 7 years, 4 months ago
          Eww,

          as usual you did not pay attention to a single thing I wrote. I think rand philosophy of reason and individualism is great, I think atheism is a fools religion, but my belief in individualism would bid me to protect your right to have that fools religion if you so desire.

          We disagree about the existence of a creator. Fine, what do we agree on? Do you even know or care?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
            You did in fact write that Ayn Rand's philosophy is a "fool's religion" and claim that a supernatural "creator" is the source of rights. Rejection of faith in the supernatural is a simple, straightforward consequence of a philosophy of reason. You can't have it both ways. You have said nothing about a rational basis of rights or on what you agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy or show that you even understand it. This is not the place for you to swagger in with irrational denunciations of Ayn Rand as a "fool" for rejecting faith and it is not the place for you to promote your religious faith. If there is something you want to discuss about Ayn Rand's ideas then do it, but leave the religion and the insults out of it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by XenokRoy 7 years, 4 months ago
              Like I said, you have not read anythign I have ever said. You see anything to do with god, or a creator and shut down.

              I find it pointless to try to talk about anything else with you Ewv because you cannot use reason to get past your own blind prejudiced.

              I have never said Rand's philosophy is a "fools Religion" Go look at it, you can even read it. I said the religion of atheism is a fools religion. They are two very different statements.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                You said Ayn Rand's philosophy's rejection of faith in god is a fool's religion: "I find Rands atheism a fools religion, and this is once again an example of a fool pushing it." Atheism is not a religion, or even a philosophy, at all, it is simply disbelief in the supernatural, as a consequence of rational thought. It says nothing about what does understand and believe and their are many different philosophies that reject the supernatural.

                Your belief in the supernatural is fundamentally incompatible with Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason. The rejection of the irrational is not "blind prejudice" by "fools" with a competing "religion", we know exactly what we believe and why, and reject your insulting nonsense. Rejecting your faith is not "shutting down". You shut yourself down. We keep right on going without you; your faith-based ideology is cognitively irrelevant and is irrelevant to the purpose of this forum. It is dogmatic faith that is impossible to reason with.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • -1
                  Posted by XenokRoy 7 years, 4 months ago
                  The straw man of "rejection of supernatural" as athiesm is just that. If you are going to aproach athiesm as a science rather than a religion then prove that god does not exist. Prove your hipothosys - prove that nothing supernatural exists, that there is no god. When you can we can talk until then what you have is a religion that is based on the rejection of supernatural which you cannot prove.

                  The rest of objectivism can coexist with others who are not athiest, that part cannot.

                  I have no use for those who return to lick up there own vomit over and over again. I have have added you to my ignore list. You are like a record player with one track, and I simply asked why keep playing the same track, why focus on it, when it has no bearing what so ever on the issue at hand. I get this thread from you. I hope I will never see a post of yours again. You are the first and only person with that distinct honor, and its not a good one to have of making my ignore list.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                    This forum has no use for militant religionists who swagger in here obnoxiously accusing us of being "fools" for rejecting his religion and spewing obscenities like: "I have no use for those who return to lick up there own vomit over and over again". This disgusting intrusive troll should be removed from the forum.

                    How many times does it have to be explained to this clown that rejecting out of hand the arbitrary and the meaningless does not require disproving a negative?

                    Belief in the supernatural cannot "coexist with Objectivism" within a mind that is consistent. See Ayn Rand's article "Faith and Force" in her *Philosophy: Who Needs It?", and many other explanations of why she rejected the supernatural. Her philosophy of reason is not a Chinese menu to be combined with its opposite on the whim of obnoxious religious militants. "Primacy of Existence" is the principle recognizing existence as prior to consciousness, which perceives existence and which must then understand what it is, does not mean renaming "existence" to mean whatever a subjectivist imagines it to be as he proclaims some consciousness had to create and give identity to everything that is. That is the classical, first example of the fallacy of the "Primacy of Consciousness". Recognizing that and rejecting it for what it is is not an "atheist fool's religion" "for those who return to lick up there own vomit".
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 7 years, 5 months ago
    I am a citizen of the land of me. I sneakily reside in a world that mostly does not acknowledge my existence except to annually steal some of my property which I allow so as not to be noticed. My camouflage is to give the appearance of obeying artificial laws while actually living by my own code. To the extent that I achieve this, my life is good, when I cannot hide from my oppressors, my life is hell.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by chad 7 years, 4 months ago
      Unfortunately trying to live life unobserved allows that at times you will be discovered, taxed controlled and enslaved. However Estienne was right, it is the only way to live free.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by BradSnipes1 7 years, 4 months ago
      I will soon be self sufficient in a hidden place and I will ignore this government. I hope!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Animal 7 years, 4 months ago
        Yes, but will the government ignore you?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by coaldigger 7 years, 4 months ago
          It will crush him if it finds him and he is happy doing his thing while bothering no one. It is not preferable to live on the outside but the government has institutionalized so many incursions on individual freedoms in spite of the founding principles that an individual has no other choice. I have believed for a long time that I may die in chains in a dark hole but I am determined to be quietly defiant to the end. I am not interested in an intellectual debate where all the terms have been redefined.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 4 months ago
    Have you never known anyone who you respected for other traits that also had a belief in religion? Jet is not proselytizing his faith in this post. He is trying to share his legal research. Instead of jumping to conclusions, have an open mind and examine all the facts before you throw out 100% of a legal explanation that may be 99% truthful and 100% invaluable.

    It disgusts me that objectivists here would rather argue over atheism vs religion instead of examining what may be a crucial way the law has been used to steal power from individuals and wield it in the state.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
      Re-read the title of this thread and his repeated use of the term in his posts. Discussing atheism vs. religion absolutely is on topic. One reason why conservative arguments for individual rights aren't more widely accepted is that they rely on faith-based doctrines rather than on reason and logic.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 4 months ago
        Which repeated term is so offensive that you refuse to even consider anything that is proposed, CBJ? Without intending offense, how can that possily be objectivist? How can you make an objective judgement without listening to the information presented? Because you disagree with one word or phrase ? How can you vote for Gary Johnson when you disagree with some of his policies? The answer is that you listened to all he had to say and rationally considered the alternatives.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
          The fact that he frequently repeats the term “Creator endowed rights” shows (to me, anyway) that he considers the “creator endowed” modifier to be an integral part of his argument and beliefs. This puts it fundamentally at odds with Objectivism, since we don’t consider rights to be contingent on an “endowment” from some supernatural being. If the premise is invalid, a valid conclusion cannot follow from it, regardless of whether that conclusion can be shown to be true or false by other means.

          As for my voting for Gary Johnson, it’s a strategic decision that in no way binds me to agreement with all of his positions. It’s based on my expectations of what he would do as President, if elected. If Jetgraphics were running instead of Gary Johnson, I would likely vote for him for the same reason.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
      Obviously most of us would "rather" that militant religionists stop their promotions entirely. As long as they do it will be rejected. This entire thread was based on the false explicit premise of a supernatural being as responsible for rights.

      That is not addressed by changing the topic to the law being changed away from protecting our rights, as if that could be discussed without reference to the underlying false philosophies that make it possible and which make rationally defending the rights of the individual impossible.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 4 months ago
        Fine. ewv. You refuse to listen to anything. That is not what an objectivist does.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
          Faith is incompatible with reason and religious conservative appeals to the supernatural as the alleged basis of rights is incompatible with Objectivism. Appeals to the supernatural are not the basis of rights. This is not a matter of "listening", we have heard the same conservative fallacy over and over and reject it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
            The militant religionists who rotely 'downvote' rejection of their dogma and who have no rational discussion to offer do not belong on this forum. This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and egoism, not crusading anti-intellectual conservatives pushing religion and duty.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mminnick 7 years, 5 months ago
    If you are not part of a society the items you mentioned are yours, but they have no effect on you as a single individual wandering aimlessly about the countryside. As soon as there are more than one person involved the rights you mentioned must be protected. otherwise the guy with the biggest stick (read weapon) rules and all you hold so dear is gone.
    Over time mankind as developed several ways of the government granting privileges to the citizens of the country. Note they grant privileges not rights.
    they have the rights you get what the rulers want you to have. As far back as the Greeks societies it was realized that monarchy, oligarchy e and all of the other archies were by their nature oppressive to some extent or another. Athens tried tru democracy and it worked for a while, then along came the Persians and the Spartans and they elected a dictator and that ended the democracy ( a much simplified and time compressed statement).
    Rome tried a Republic, that worked for a while then it failed (Julius Ceaser and the other cearsers saw to that). Now to my main point. A democracy or a republic confers rights upon its citizens, not privileges. Each instance enumerates the rights differently but basically itthe rights allow you to pretty much do as you please unless you attempt to trample on the rights of others. The protection of rights requires laws and custom. Laws inparticular require approval of the population. In a democracy allpeople vote on the law. In a republic the representatives of the citizens vote on them after being elected by the citizens.
    Thus without the vote you cannot protect your rights and they become privileges that can be taken away since you have no real recourse . Enough of the rightrs get taken away and you get a revolution which in most cases replaces the current ruling class with another. There are a few notable exceptions, the USA being the most prominent.
    So by voting or being able to bvote I don’t give up any natual right byt ensure them for myself and the others citizens coming after me.

    Just my humble opinion and view of life.

    Very thought provoking post: +1
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
      Governments instituted to secure endowed rights cannot confer them - they already exist. Anything government gives is a privilege, not an endowed right.

      According to the Declaration of Independence, Americans are endowed by their Creator with life, liberty, absolute ownership and other inherent powers.
      Yet, all citizens are obligated to perform mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights. (Ex: militia duty)

      The courts rule that we have endowed / sacred / inherent rights.

      " PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or Natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most SACRED and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
      - - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987...
      . . .
      Yet they also rule that mandatory duties are not INVOLUNTARY servitude.
      . . .
      The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

      Who is correct?

      Is Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration correct, stating that all men [American people] have Creator endowed rights that government was instituted to secure?
      Or constitutional government that imposes mandatory civic duties upon “individuals” (citizens)?

      The only explanation that resolves this conundrum is that CONSENT (via citizenship, socialism, and banking) voids endowed rights, thus making the obligations VOLUNTARY.

      In other words, Americans do have Creator endowed rights to life, liberty, absolute ownership and other inherent powers of sovereignty UNLESS they consent. In which case they surrender those rights in exchange for government privileges (political and civil liberty), and concomitant civic duties that would otherwise violate the endowed rights to life, liberty, absolute ownership and inherent powers.

      ❏ In America, if you have endowed rights, you’re under the republican form of government.
      ❏ If instead of endowed rights, you have mandatory civic duties, you’re under the constitutionally limited indirect democracy that serves the people in the republican form of government.
      ❏ If you have socialist obligations, you’ve volunteered into the socialist democratic form, via FICA.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
        Re: “Is Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration correct, stating that all men [American people] have Creator endowed rights that government was instituted to secure? Or constitutional government that imposes mandatory civic duties upon “individuals” (citizens)?” A false alternative. Rights are not “Creator endowed” and do not depend upon the existence of a supreme being and what that being chooses to endow. And a constitutional government does not necessarily impose mandatory civic duties. And lest we forget, Thomas Jefferson became President under the U.S. Constitution, thus implicitly endorsing it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -1
          Posted by 7 years, 4 months ago
          GEOWASH says otherwise:
          . . .
          “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
          - - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

          [... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

          IN SHORT,
          The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (taxes, etc).
          However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the American people (noncitizens) who did not consent to be governed.
          . . .
          Make no mistake!
          • The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
          • But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
          • The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
          • But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
          • The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
          • But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.

          If you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
          Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
          Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.

          The government can order you to train, fight, and die, on command.
          The government can take a portion of your property -or wages - or whatever - as it sees fit.
          All authorized by your consent to be a CITIZEN (state or U.S.).
          (The USCON complies with this, too. People have rights and powers. Citizens have privileges and immunities. And they’re mutually exclusive.)
          . . . . . . . . . .
          The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

          Since the militia only include male CITIZENS, and not all people (who apparently retain their rights), citizenship must be voluntary. But once one volunteers, those civic duties become mandatory.

          Now that we know it is our consent to be citizens that waives our right to life and liberty, it is futile to argue over the loss of other inconsequential rights.

          Complaining about consent already given is as useful as a volunteer on a suicide mission, blurting out "They want me to do WHAT?! - That could get me KILLED!"
          . . . . . . . . . .
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
            Re: "GEOWASH says otherwise". This is an Ayn Rand forum, not a George Washington one.

            "Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time." -- Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
              Followed by:

              "If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state's discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom—then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man's protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?

              "The most immoral contradiction—in the chaos of today's anti-ideological groups—is that of the so-called "conservatives," who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account?...

              "One of the notions used by all sides to justify the draft, is that 'rights impose obligations'. Obligations, to whom?—and imposed, by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse than the evil it attempts to justify: it implies that rights are a gift from the state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something (his life) in return. Logically, that notion is a contradiction: since the only proper function of a government is to protect man's rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection.

              "The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one's own rights to be recognized and protected.

              "Politically, the draft is clearly unconstitutional. No amount of rationalization, neither by the Supreme Court nor by private individuals, can alter the fact that it represents 'involuntary servitude'."

              Our rights are the result of recognizing the moral requirements to live in accordance with our nature as human beings. Civil rights encoded in law are supposed to acknowledge and protect those rights. The conservative notion of undefined and unexplained rights decreed to 'come from god' versus arbitrary decrees by government is a grotesque false alternative.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
      Under the republican form of government, Americans do have endowed rights, etc., that government was instituted to secure. However, if one consents to be governed, what you allude to is part of the package deal - political and civil liberties (aka "rights").
      Remember, a republican form is not synonymous with a republic. The People's Republic of China is a republic - but not a republican form.
      . . .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 7 years, 4 months ago
    It does not matter if the majority has decided that it is okay to take my property if I have the right to dissent and not allow it that is the only vote that counts. If I do not have this right to resist others by non conformity then I am their slave.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gpecaut 7 years, 4 months ago
    Whether you believe in God, or just that in the nature of man (Natural) , and that would include Objectivists, that our rights do not come from Government, is what sets us apart from most Governments.
    Our founders said it best in the debates leading to our Constitution. If men were angles, we wouldn't need Government. Also if our leaders were angles, we wouldn't need checks and balances.
    Bit I fear they were also right in that when the Government gets too large/powerful, the people will vote themselves gifts from the Treasury, and bankrupt the Nation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
    Republican Form << not synonymous with >> Republic

    Thanks to the world's greatest propaganda ministry, not 1 in 100,000 Americans can accurately define, nor identify the source of the promised republican form of government. (No, it's not a constitutional republic).

    The RFOG was described in the Declaration of Independence, wherein it stated that all men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. And such governments can only govern / rule by consent of the governed. Absent consent, government cannot rule - only serve. Therefore, the people are sovereigns.
    . . . .
    No other nation on earth has a republican form, where the people are sovereigns. Nor can a constitution "create" a RFOG, since submission to the terms of the compact void sovereignty.
    . . . .
    God blessed Americans with a republican form of government. . . the only nation on earth with such a form.
    = = = = =
    RFOG: THE IDEAL FORM

    “The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the Rights of mankind.”
    - - - Thomas Jefferson
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_...

    “I firmly believe that the benevolent Creator designed the republican Form of Government for Man.”
    - - - Samuel Adams;
    Statement of (14 April 1785), quoted in The Writings of Samuel Adams (1904) edited by Harry A. Cushing
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_A...

    "What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
    - - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_...

    As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, endowed by our Creator, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
    . . .
    " When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."
    - - - CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.

    HE IS NOT BOUND BY ANY INSTITUTIONS FORMED BY HIS FELLOWMEN WITHOUT HIS CONSENT.

    Without consent, no majority can rule nor govern, only secure endowed rights of the sovereign people.

    All endowed rights and liberties are from the Creator, not government, and thus cannot be subject to a majority vote, or any other infringement.
    . . .
    “... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
    “... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
    - - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...

    Under the republican form, Americans are sovereigns without subjects, and the social equal of all other monarchs. That is why Americans do not bow nor kneel to foreign monarchs (or should not). And it also explains why Americans can marry foreign nobility without violating local laws barring such unions with "commoners." And though vulgar, it is legally accurate to retort, "Kiss my royal American @ss!"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
      Re: " When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. I assume "retire elsewhere" means leaving the geographical boundaries of the new republic, not remaining in place.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by 7 years, 4 months ago
        Remember, an American sovereign domiciled upon private property is a 'foreign' to the government.

        All sovereigns are foreign to other sovereigns.

        FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
        - - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII.
        Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884

        "The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
        Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.

        And therefore, the American people who are "Sovereigns without subjects" are also foreign to their respective state governments.

        “... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves[.]”

        - - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...

        If Justice John Jay is not lying, then no American government is a sovereign, nor can it "rule" / govern without consent of the governed.
        DING DING DING.

        "In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
        Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
        (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

        "A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
        Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)

        “. . . A sovereign is not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192

        And if government is not sovereign, guess who is?
        The PEOPLE.
        Who says so?
        The servant government.

        It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
        Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

        In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
        [ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]

        Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
        [Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]

        In most government forms, one may be asked to claim to be a citizen, but there is no bar to claiming to be an American national, non-resident to the forum, and thus not surrender any inherent rights nor powers. In fact, the State department will issue passports to non-citizen American nationals.

        Also, when you read statutes, pay attention if they apply to all the people or just persons subject to or object of the government. Only by actually reading the law will you be convinced that the republican form is still the law of the land.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Blanco 7 years, 4 months ago
      Excellent commentary! Most of our Founding Fathers who were the architects of our Republic and the authors of our Constitution believed in a Creator as the source of our human rights (as opposed to government or any human collective). As for Rand's atheism, this is primarily the reason that I'm a libertarian rather than an objectivist.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
        "Libertarian" is a (vague) political position, not a philosophical alternative to Objectivism. You can't be an "Objectivist" if you don't know what it is or don't understand it. Rejecting a philosophy of reason in favor of a vague political position because it conflicts with faith makes no sense. This is an Ayn Rand forum. Why are you here as a "devout" religionist? What did you like about Atlas Shrugged -- just the political consequences with no regard to what the novel was about? What is it about Atlas Shrugged that attracted you?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 7 years, 4 months ago
    unfortunately when we lost the republic and went to a democracy we entered the era of the tyranny of the majority who are willing to give away their rights and yours and mine for the false political promise of security by the state...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by preimert1 7 years, 4 months ago
    To reconcile the opposing beliefs of atheism vs theism, let me suggest the paradigm of pantheism wherein God and the Universe are one and the same. The most well known espouser of this paradigm was 16th century philosopher Baruch Spinoza, but it may have originated long before in ancient Greece. So "nature and nature's god" is not surernatural, and thus god's laws are actually those of the universe--leaving all others to be authored by men to control mankind. In my pondering, I've come up with a few correllary
    conjectures:
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
      It won’t work. Most religious people today consider God to be a separate being, existing apart from the universe and being its creator. Most non-religious people would not consider it necessary to have two words for one concept, when the word “universe” by itself has a commonly accepted meaning that most people agree on.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by preimert1 7 years, 4 months ago
        It works for me. A paradigm is not a religion and
        I'm not "most people", I am me.

        Jetgraphics, my apology for hi-jacking your thread
        with this digression. I should have posted separately under Philosophy.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
      That doesn't work simply because it is a logical contradiction. One can be separate from something and be a part of it at the same time. That's like trying to assert that A = !A. While I appreciate the attempt at reconciliation, that theory simply can't hold water. Either God exists as a separate entity from the rest of the Universe, or God does not exist.

      I would also point out that if you look at most theistic religions, the concept of God is an ideal for man to strive to achieve. The notion that man can somehow become the universe is a little too hard to swallow. Could there exist a God who lived by the same laws as the laws of the Universe and yet be separate and distinct from the Universe? That seems the only plausible alternative.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by preimert1 7 years, 4 months ago
      (sorry, I hit the wrong key) to continue my thoughts:
      Being a part of the universe, we are in god and god is in us irrespective of good or evil, where "good" is the pursuit of knowlege, "evil" is the repression of knowlege.

      To "know, love and serve god" is why we're here. Perhaps scientists mining the mind of god are the only true priests.

      Life is a "force" analogous to fire. It was always here and just needs the necessary conditions to express itself. It is not unique to one planet. Our mothers made our bodies from the elements of planet on which we were born in accordance with genetic specifications and passed it to us at the proper time--like one candle lights another. Perhaps, if the fire analogy holds, the first life on Earth could have occurred spontaneously when conditions were right?

      Upon death it seems natural that the elements of our bodies be returned to nature from whence they were borrowed. The flicker of life may rejoin life, or per the First Law of Thermodynamics, it might become another form of energy. It pleases me to think that the ray of sunshine that warms my back on a chilly day, or the gentle breeze on my cheek on a spring day may have once been someone I loved or had once loved me.

      But what of the soul? Is there really such a thing or is it a concept we made up to convince ourselves of immortality? Is it some kind of fundimental "force" like fire or life subject to the First Law? Is it the sum total of our knowlege, memories and experiences that exists somewhere? That's a mystery beyond science.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -2
        Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
        One of Ayn Rand's biggest conflicts with organized religion was the notion that humankind didn't go on to achieve the status of the very gods they emulated. So instead she chose atheism. She believed very much in capacity of the mind for reason and learning: to enter some afterlife of limited or diminished capacity seemed to her a contradiction.

        As to the notion of a soul, one has to pose the question: to what end? It is only in postulating a goal for such a soul that the question can be entertained at all.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
          Ayn Rand rejected the supernatural as fundamentally irrational. She did not "choose atheism" because "humankind didn't achieve the status of gods" or because of "diminished capacity" in an "afterlife". You don't know what you are talking about and continuously misrepresent Ayn Rand's philosophy and try to replace it with interjections of religious nonsense. Rejecting belief in the supernatural does not require answering floating abstractions about the alleged "goals of souls".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
            "The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive - a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence...Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God... Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith....The purpose of man's life...is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. [Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual]"

            Uh, yes she did. Her objection is that man must remain subordinate to God. I did not misrepresent anything.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
              Ayn Rand rejected belief in god because she rejected faith as contrary to reason. See "Faith and Force". Your quote of Ayn Rand properly denouncing the mystics' destruction, including their demands for intellectual subservience, does not remotely support your ridiculous claim that Ayn Rand "chose atheism" because "humankind didn't go on to achieve the status of the very gods they emulated" or or because of "diminished capacity" in an "afterlife".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -2
                Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
                If a person does not remain subservient, does that not make them an equal? I do not consider it a stretch at all to conclude exactly as I have.

                In the end, Rand made a choice - just like every single one of us must. And we will all have to live - and die - with that choice and all its ramifications. I know what the purpose of this life is. If I die tomorrow, I know where I am going and who I will face. For every action I have taken I will give an accounting. And everyone will individually be in that very same position. The question is who will be prepared to do so.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 4 months ago
    The framers had no choice but to referen God. The times compelled it. Some of them were likely closeted atheist, (Jefferson, etc.) but nothing but blood-letting would result by that revelation. However, we are talking about the Objectivist view in which a deity/ghost would be altered to words that promote life. Any argument that allows one to elevate "creator" to an actuality is not an Objectivist, so any argument for creator endowment is no longer strictly an Objectivist definition but a atheist VS deist debate. After one has been through this waste of time, one learns that it is better to bypass this type of encounter.

    As to the question: Mankind's amazingly rapid evolution via science has not caused a commensurate evolution in society. In many ways it has caused a regression (putting a gun into the hand of a 5 year old.) Therefore, for pure survival men have invented governments, which by their very nature restricts freedom. The attempt of the Founders to allow as much freedom as possible while still keeping order was (is) a noble experiment. But the very fact of current events illustrates why total freedom is not viable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
      Current events illustrate why much more freedom than we have now is necessary. Most of the instability and violence in the world is a consequence of people having their freedom violated by those in control.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No offense intended, it is clear that you came to that conclusion, but it isn't clear how you can be certain that there is no further rational argument if you have not heard it. I think I understand Rand's rational point of view on the source of rights but I'm not convinced the legal research on sovereignty is incompatible since both contend that rights do not come from government.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by 7 years, 4 months ago
    It is a correct observation that I do not accept Ms Rand's philosophy, as expressed in "Atlas Shrugged."

    John Galt (“Atlas Shrugged”) got it almost right - you have to leave “the system”. You can’t rescue a sinking socialist (pirate) ship of state by adding more crew. Cooperation with evil, only makes more evil. Withdrawing consent is a viable tactic.

    But Ayn Rand got it wrong when she embraced the "Dark Side" - government privileged, limited liability artificial persons (i.e., corporations), usury (interest), and money madness - the belief in money tokenism independent of the market. There is no way a finite, scarce metallic coin can maintain economic proportionality with the dynamic marketplace of goods and services. And worse, usury requires an infinite money supply, due to the exponential equation used for compound interest.

    Though compulsory charity is a curse, voluntary charity is dependent upon benevolence of those who have more than they need - a surplus. And prosperity is built upon the production, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services - not the acquisition of money tokens. A mountain of money is useless if there is nothing to buy with it. If John Galt espoused prosperity, while avoiding the pitfalls of money madness, and denounced predators and parasites, “Atlas Shrugged,” may have been better received.

    Soundbite version: The left wing "looters" and the right wing "usurers" are but opposite wings of the same vulture, feeding on the carcass of American property owners.
    . . . .
    The following link is to a science fiction story that highlights some aspects similar to a republican form and liberty money, but erroneously links it to civil disobedience.

    “And Then There Were None”
    http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php
    = = =
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
      Ayn Rand did not advocate "leaving the system" to reform it and did not embrace any "Dark Side" of anything or "money madness". Corporations are voluntary associations of individuals. Interest on loans, contrary to the 'anti-usurery' religious fanatics, is the price for using someone else's money. Please stop the rambling repetitive preaching and misrepresentation of Ayn Rand.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by 7 years, 4 months ago
    America’s “original recipe”
    > ||| The republican form of government ||| <

    Believer or Not, do you really object to a government instituted to secure creator endowed rights, privileges, powers, and immunities, which cannot tax, impair or infringe said endowment, unless in pursuit of justice for an injured party or by consent of the governed?
    . . .
    Furthermore, do you really object to a servant government composed of unselfish, brave, virtuous people who surrender their sovereignty, in order to serve the people, via mandatory civic duties (jury duty, militia duty, paying taxes), and who are held to a higher standard of behavior (service is a privilege not a right), so that the sovereign people will have no grounds to object to them?
    . . .
    What more do you want?
    The law on the books is in harmony with the republican form. If you do not consent to be governed, you retain your endowment, as defined by the organic documents that established the governments.

    Unlike all other nations, America has a republican form, due to the Declaration of Independence, whose principles are repeated in every constitution in the USA. Americans are “born equal” ergo, not subject to a superior, or any other - unless they consent. They have natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership, inherent powers, and so on.

    Contrast that with the French Revolution, and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In France, you are born a subject of the sovereign government. No other government created since 1776, acknowledged that the people are sovereigns, and the governments are their servants, not their rulers.

    That most Americans do not know this fact is a victory for the World’s Greatest Propaganda Ministry.
    . . .
    . . .
    Americans, unlike the rest of the world, have a choice:
    [] Republican form of government, where the people are sovereigns, and the government is their servant, instituted to secure their endowed rights.
    -OR-
    <> Democratic form of government, where the citizens are subjects of their sovereign government, and serve it.
    . . .
    Of course, once consent is given, shut up, sit down, and obey.
    . . .
    As to the many and valid objections to the current indirect democratic socialist totalitarian, but benevolent police state, according to the law YOU CONSENTED TO IT.

    You might wish to inquire further, as to HOW and WHEN you gave consent to be governed. You might write polite questionnaires to your sovereign government.
    Ask for copies of the constitutional laws that:
    1. Govern you without your consent;
    2. Impose involuntary servitude in the 50 states united;
    3. Require enrollment into FICA;
    4. Impose an excise tax on any endowed right or liberty; and
    5. Restrict or regulate personal liberty.
    . . .
    He who consents cannot complain.
    Silence is passive consent.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
    Note: citizenship imposes civic duties that abrogate endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, inherent powers and immunities.

    . . .
    “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
    - - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

    [... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

    IN SHORT,
    The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (taxes, etc).
    However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the American people (noncitizens) who did not consent to be governed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
      "Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time." -- Ayn Rand
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
        Agreed. . . Except in America.
        The duty is due to consent to be a citizen.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American...
        "The great draft riot in New York City in July 1863 involved Irish immigrants who had been signed up as citizens to swell the vote of the city's Democratic political machine, not realizing it made them liable for the draft."

        Though most Americans presume they were "born citizens," that is legally impossible in the united States of America under the promised republican form.

        Do not believe me - go read the law and write polite questionnaires to public servants like the attorney general. Ask where the jurisdiction of the "United States" is, and thus identify who were born "subject to its jurisdiction."

        As Justice John Jay wrote, Americans are sovereigns without subjects. And citizens, by definition, are subjects, due to mandatory civic duties.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
          Ayn Rand was talking about the moral principle of individual rights, which applies as much in America as anyplace else. And as I read it, anyone born in the United States whose parents are citizens automatically becomes a citizen "subject to its jurisdiction".
          http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
            As a victim of the WGPM, I can sympathize. BUT. If you read the actual laws and court decisions, there is a distinct dichotomy between American "people" who are sovereigns, and American "citizens" who are subjects.
            People who are sovereigns without subjects cannot be 'born citizens' subject to a government that was instituted to secure endowed rights.
            Either Thomas Jefferson, et al, are liars, or we're victims of a great fraud.

            "... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
            - - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

            Here's one tidbit that may illuminate the issue:

            "The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states ..."
            [Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]

            So we know there are “free inhabitants” (i.e., “free men”) who are NOT “free citizens.”
            And we know that citizens = subjects, under the common law.
            Subjects owes allegiance to a sovereign. They are not sovereigns. They have mandatory civic duties, so they are not free men, nor are they at liberty.

            And yet, Justice John Jay wrote:
            * “... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves[.]”*
            - - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
            https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...

            Perhaps this is why few Americans are ever taught the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION in government controlled indoctrination centers.

            One might discover that there are non-citizen inhabitants who retained their endowed rights.

            IN American one can be a sovereign without subjects, endowed with rights
            -or-
            One can consent to be a subject citizen, obligated to perform mandatory civic duties, in exchange for political liberty (voting and holding public office.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
              Objectivists don’t recognize rights as being “endowed”. Thomas Jefferson et. al. are not “liars”, but they were mistaken on certain issues. The court decision you cite makes an analogy, not an absolute identity. The Articles of Confederation excerpt you cite appears to be using the terms “inhabitants” and “citizens” interchangeably.

              Objectivists do not recognize any “mandatory civic duties” apart from respecting the rights of others. We consider the imposition of such duties as a government overstepping its proper bounds. But we do recognize that governments should exist, and that their proper function is the protection of individual rights.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 5 months ago
                I could be wrong, but I think that you and JetG are first in disagreement about the source of rights. It is the bedrock that underlies all the argument in favor of individuals over government. I think both you and JetG could have a more productive discussion if you can set aside that disagreement for another time and look together at the laws that established America. I don't suggest that you disregard the question of how the rights came to be, because it is important, but if you set it aside for the moment and accept that individual rights exist before government you can discuss productively the importance of "consent."
                I think that rationally examining that evidence in the law will provide a bond that makes the source of rights discussion easier at another time.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
                  I can go into more detail later (and I may be mistaken), but I’m under the impression (from the title of this thread and our subsequent exchanges) that the concept of creator-endowed natural rights is an essential component of his point of view. I’m also under the impression that the issue of “consent” has a different meaning for Objectivists than for others. The Objectivist view (in my understanding) is that a legitimate government (one that protects individual rights) has jurisdiction over a given geographical area, regardless of the circumstances of that government’s creation. Thus, for Objectivists, the issue of an individual’s consent to such jurisdiction does not arise.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 4 months ago
                    I suggest that the "creator" part of the title should not be viewed as an obstacle to understanding the legal points that Jet has to explain. Until you listen to those points with an objective mind you may not get his point about consent and how legally it may not have the definition that you currently accept.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
                      My interest in government is mainly whether and to what extent it fulfills its proper function of protecting individual rights. From what little I’ve read of the sovereign viewpoint ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soverei... ), there are things in it I agree with and things I don’t agree with. In our exchanges on this thread I have been mainly concerned with discussing the areas where his views and those of Objectivism (as I understand it) do not coincide. The legal distinctions and historical background I’ll leave for someone else to discuss.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                    "Consent" does not arise because government, whether legitimate or not, has a monopoly on the use of force. Force precludes a requirement for consent, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with what the government is doing.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
      Not true. Governments are created to protect and defend individual liberties, but as a condition of membership in an organization (freedom of association), that membership may demand certain actions by its members. Voting comes with the stipulation of registering for the Selective Service. I would also note that under the original Constitution, the only "taxation" deemed acceptable was tariffs on imported goods. It wasn't until Woodrow Wilson in the early 1900's that the Income Tax was postulated and became law by Amendment.

      As to those who "do not consent to be governed" it is their responsibility to leave. One does not get to enjoy the protection of the armed services, protection via police and fire resources, our educational establishments, our roads, etc. without consenting to be governed in return. It is either all out or all in. There is no fence-sitting.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by IndianaGary 7 years, 4 months ago
        Not all governments recognize the primacy of existence or the rights of man qua man. Those that don't are immoral, including, unfortunately, our own.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
          You are correct. I am, of course, relying on the history of our Government and the Declaration of Independence. And where our government started out on a moral foundation, I, too, agree that it has strayed significantly from its course.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by 7 years, 4 months ago
            Since the republican form is still the law of the land, it is only the consenting citizens and their government that has strayed into a socialist democratic totalitarian police state.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
    I think you want to talk solely about rights, but not the accompanying responsibilities. When asked about the newly formed government, Benjamin Franklin noted "A Republic. If you can keep it." He was noting that representative government requires action by its citizens to uphold the principles of natural rights and to keep in check its own government from encroachment upon those rights. We can not simply do nothing and expect to retain our rights.

    As citizens, we must form militias for self-defense. In the early days, those militias were simply the able-bodied in every township who would come to the defense of said township. And it was the duty of everyone to participate. During the Civil War, those militias became conscripted armies for the States where they lived, but they were still fighting for their homes. Following the Civil War, however, the United States began turning more and more to professional armies. See the Mexican War and the (Native American) Indian Wars rather than the less formal militias. Now, people think militias are wacko militant groups.

    Let's take voting as a second example. In the early days, every man was actively engaged in town halls and even preached politics from the pulpit in the local congregation. We had an informed and motivated electorate who put pressure on their elected representatives to hold to Constitutional values. Now people know more about Kim Kardashian than their Senators and Representatives.

    People have already surrendered their rights to liberty by allowing passage of the personal income tax and by extension it's right to tax businesses - and hold certain charities, etc. as tax-exempt provided they don't engage in political speech. They enslave themselves by voting for politicians who promise them handouts at the expense of their children and "the rich".

    And why? Because they don't want the responsibilities that come with the rights involved in freedom.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
      'No rights without responsibilities' is a conservative slogan at best substituting for understanding and at worst promoting collectivism. We have rights by our nature, not in exchange for duties. The moral responsibility is a personal one to think and support what is required to live as a human being, with a consequence to support the kind of government necessary to protect our rights, not to be submissive to duties imposed as social 'responsibility' in exchange for 'rights'.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
        Your own statement acknowledges my point: "The moral responsibility is a personal one to think and support what is required to live as a human being". That is the first and foremost responsibility that goes with exercising one's rights: knowing what they are and their proper application. One can not guard against infringement of one's rights without knowing what those rights are in the first place. I'm not implying a social responsibility, but a personal one. Activity in a militia is a personal responsibility in protection of life and property (though it also applies to protection of one's family). Voting is a personal responsibility in protection of freedom and rights of speech and association.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
          There is no duty to be in a state militia or any other kind of involuntary servitude. Our rights as individuals are inherent in our nature as human beings who require the freedom to think and act on behalf of our own lives; they are not contingent on "responsibility". People who behave irresponsibly destroy themselves or are to be restrained for the violation of others' rights. The conservative slogan "no rights without responsibilities" is flat wrong. It is pronounced in a social, not a personal context. It does not recognize the source and meaning of personal responsibility and substitutes collectivist imposition of "social responsibility" on individuals.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
            If you are not willing to protect and defend your own property, to place that burden on someone else (without compensation) is nothing less than slavery, is it not? Of course it is. If someone infringes on a trademark or other intellectual property you own, is it not your individual responsibility to sue them to stop? Yes. If someone builds a fence encompassing a portion of your property and you ignore it, do you not lose ownership of that land? Yes. And why is that? Because a right not asserted is no right at all.

            What is responsibility? It is the personal acknowledgement of the requirement to act. What you argue by claiming that rights have no associated responsibilities is that rights require no action to retain them. But as I have demonstrated, defense of a right is the required action born of responsibility. And just as rights are individual, so is that responsibility. May groups of individuals recognize a similarity of rights and act together to efficiently delegate responsibility to others to protect rights? Absolutely, and this is how governments were formed (see the Preamble to the Constitution).

            Anyone can do absolutely nothing at all. It takes no energy and no thought. No action. No choice. No accountability. No responsibility. And no rights as a result. One becomes merely another object in the universe rather than an agent in pursuit of one's own future.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
              Rambling speeches with conservative slogans don't "demonstrate" anything. There are no unchosen duties. Our rights are a consequence of our nature as human beings, which in turn requires a government to enforce them with limited powers, recognizing the absolute right of each individual to make his own choices in his own life. Rational choices include assuring a proper government, not conservative traditions and collectivism. Rights are not a gift of conservatives as social conventions in exchange for imposed vague claims of "responsibilities", including such obscenities as a duty to serve in a "militia".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
                You mix in an irrelevant opinion in the first sentence, an out-of-the-blue and unsubstantiated assertion in the second, and yet in the third you finally say something intelligent and spot on. And then in your fourth you again turn to the fallacies of false accusation and guilt by association, only to finish up with a straw man and another opinion. If you had half the intellectual integrity and honesty you proclaimed, your last post would have only one statement - a statement I agree with whole-heartedly.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                  Rights do not come from conservative imposed "responsibility". There are no unchosen duties. Intellectual integrity does not mean only writing what conservatives believe. My post was an integrated explanation, not a chinese menu available for snatching whatever you like when misrepresented as conservative duty.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -1
                    Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
                    "Rights do not come from conservative imposed "responsibility"."

                    And I never said anything of the kind. I said that responsibility and rights go hand-in-hand. Neither can exist without the other. And I never used the word conservative either, though it is clear from the way you use it that is an invective to you. I can only conclude that you include the term to confirm your own bias (against conservatives). I invite you to take those glasses off and crush them under your heel. Take an argument for what it is - not your version of it.

                    "There are no unchosen duties."

                    There are no unchosen actions, I agree. But duties are obligations or responsibilities and they come as a result of being alive. You don't get to choose all of them. Each of my points from above is an explicit example of a duty or responsibility being tied directly to a right. Other examples: You have a duty to respect others' right to life or risk losing the claim to your own. You have a duty to respect others' property or risk losing your own. You have a duty to obey the law or risk going to jail. Reject any of these at your peril.

                    "Intellectual integrity does not mean only writing what conservatives believe."

                    No. It means avoiding fallacy. It means not attempting to impugn intent. It means not intentionally twisting words to mean something other than what was stated. It means openly recognizing one's personal biases and suppressing them. THAT is intellectual integrity. It doesn't imply infallibility, but it does require honest intent.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 7 years, 4 months ago
                      Your no rights without responsibility is standard conservative slogan heard endlessly and showing only a lock of understanding of the concept rights.

                      There are no unchosen duties. There are no "duties" resulting from "being alive". "Duties" are moral imperatives divorcing morality from choice and from cause and effect. See Ayn Rand's "Causlity versus Duty". Conservatives trying to impose duties in the name of morality and through political force is standard fare and is no basis for defending freedom.

                      Your swinish nonsense "If you had half the intellectual integrity and honesty you proclaimed, your last post would have only one statement - a statement I agree with whole-heartedly" does not mean "avoiding fallacy". Rejecting your dogma is not lack of either "intellectual integrity" or "honesty". Religious conservative duty and political impositions are not the standard.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo