Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Temlakos 5 months, 1 week ago
    Individual rights impose a negative duty: keep your hands off me and mine.

    The mis-named "rights" collectivist politicians tout, impose positive duties: you must provide such-a-thing.

    "The man in Seat Five, Car Number Six, was a worker who believed he had 'a right' to a job, whether any given employer wished to provide it or not." Come on, you know where that came from.

    Now someone has noticed whether anyone has a duty to provide public security. Not quite. Rather, Thomas Jefferson said: "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....[W]henever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, in such form...as will seem to them most conducive to their safety and happiness."

    Next question: what sort of government would you prefer?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      There are no "duties". https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

      Political "entitlements" are only one form of the fallacy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jbrenner 5 months, 1 week ago
        What would you call the following?

        One has a ___ to take care of oneself (i.e. to not expect others to take care of him/her).

        a) a responsibility
        b) a duty
        c) an expectation

        Is there a philosophical difference between a duty and a responsibility?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
          Responsibility for your own life is not duty. See "Causality Versus Duty".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  jbrenner 5 months, 1 week ago
            I have read that, and I disagree with Rand's definition (and others' definitions) of duty as requiring submission to some form of higher authority. If one accepts Rand's definition, then duty is indeed anti-life. For future discussions in this forum, I will be more selective in my word choice.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
              Ayn Rand's characterization of "duty" in the article as "the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest" is not arbitrary. It is the philosophical use of the term, exemplified most openly by Kant.

              Common confusions of "duty" with 'obligation' or 'responsibility' are a deadly package deal instilling 'duty' as the meaning of valid concepts, even though most people sense an unnamed difference.

              When someone says something like "rights imply duties", or the package deal form that frequently appears in political promotions as an open-ended "rights imply responsibilities", watch out for what is being put over to get you to accept a way of thinking about military conscription, welfare statism, submission to bureaucracy, and the whole ideology of collectivism or theocracy.

              Getting rid of collectivism and altruism requires getting rid of the anti-concept 'duty', with a full understanding of why.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  jbrenner 5 months, 1 week ago
                I don't think 95% of the population would make such a distinction amongst duty, obligation, and responsibility, but if that is the accepted philosophical definition of duty, then it is indeed different and an anti-concept.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  25n56il4 5 months ago
          Oh you hit a nerve! One has a responsibility to take care of oneself. And let's take that a bit further. Not since I was 18 years old have I given another person the 'right' to tell me what I can or cannot do! I have been responsible for me! This subject came up in my home yesterday. I made my point!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 5 months, 1 week ago
        I like to look at as a difference between freedom and liberty. Outside of a society and even in a society, there is no duty to not act and one can choose to act but may not have liberty to do so due to governing bodies such as property owners or established governments. l am free to cross into any state without getting permission but may not have liberty to do so because of an arrest warrant, needing to pay a toll for highway use, etc.
        In the case of national boarders whether geographical, fence, or wall then one is in the equivalent of a prison where one needs permission to both leave and enter. One cannot enter Mexico or return from Mexico without permission, just as the Berlin wall had necessity of getting permission to cross a boarder to of the prison. People continue to try to freely cross the southern boarder without permission but are stopped because they have no liberty to do so.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
          Entering a free country by right does not mean there should not be border checks for those who have no right to be here. Political freedom and liberty mean the same thing. It is the opposite of communists prohibiting people from leaving their prison without their permission because no rights were recognized at all.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lrshultis 5 months, 1 week ago
            I never said there should not be geographical of or legal boarders. Just that needing permission to freely cross a boarder in both directions is no different whether by constitutional based laws of states or by a dictator. Both are equivalent to a prison wall where one must have permission to both enter and to leave. Property boarders are different because the owner can leave without permission and need not ask to return across the properties boarder. Of course, one's liberty may be stopped by the state or others.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
              Crossing the border of a free country is not anything like that of dictatorship, either in principle or in implementation. The US border is not a "prison wall". Those leaving are free to go unless suspected of criminality. Those entering are checked within the bounds of limited criteria. A dictatorship does not recognize limitations at all, either in principle or how it acts.

              Any kind of government action may involve force. In a free country its use does not replace rights with permissions and it doesn't make the US "no different" than communist East Germany. In a free country one is free to do anything unless specifically prohibited and the government is restricted in what it can do and what it must do, with no freedom to decide otherwise. That includes entering and leaving the country. Dictatorship is the opposite in both intent and actions.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by lrshultis 5 months, 1 week ago
                Sure a dictatorship recognizes limitations, how else do they allow some to leave and come back.
                The idea of a prison is that one needs to obtain permission to both leave and return. At the national boarders, one must be able to prove to the governments that they are to be allowed to cross the boarder both ways. Prison does not imply harsh treatment, only the fact that one has no right to freely come and go. The boarder of my stare of Wisconsin do not require any permissions to cross in any direction with the surrounding states. One is not even asked. Toll roads are an exception but can be circumvented easily by other roads.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                  Dictatorship does not recognize limitations on its own power. When it allows someone to do anything it is by discretion of those exercising the power, not a limitation on power. That is the opposite of a limited government protecting the rights of the individual, which is not like "prison".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by lrshultis 5 months, 1 week ago
                    Sure a limited government is much kinder to the rights, which by the way are not something that exists but rather are relationships among individuals, of the individual, but there are degrees of limitation which are difficult to control by laws written on paper. I am not saying the governments are all equal but that in essence that they are do the same thing, regulate the freedom of action of their citizens, permitting very limited liberty in some case and much more in others. In all they are leashed to the people by laws or just might. A dictator acts by his own deranged moral code which allows him to act forcibly to the people without limits, keeping his power by instilling fear into those who support him. In a limited government environment, the officials are still leashed to the people and still stay in power by making the citizens fear what will happen if they lose their control. I prefer the latter, though it is more difficult to keep. It cannot be said that the governments of the USA are very limited with the number of laws and regulations filling on the order of a hundred thousand pages.In the village where I live, one needs permission to build, replace a roof, cut a tree on one's property, have water and sewer provided by the village (one woman refused and was fined $10,000 which she refused to pay, so was jailed for two weeks but that did not work so the village condemned and removed her house from her property. Just a tiny dictatorship to brush aside to give the citizens a little something to fear and give them a little incentive keep the same kind of officials.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                      All governments do not "in essence do the same thing". Nor is it a matter of "kindness". A free society is not like a "prison".

                      This country is a mixed system. You have switched from the difference between a proper government versus dictatorship to talking about degrees of statism.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 5 months, 1 week ago
    Individual rights (as the word rights had been used until FDR) only impose a NEGATIVE duty... to not get in the way of another individual's free choice.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
        Again we see bulk 'downvoting' of everything I post by an anti-Ayn Rand coward who does not belong here.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by salta 5 months, 1 week ago
          Its not me downvoting. We agree on principles. We just disagree of the value of pedantic vocabulary elucidations (sorry I swallowed a thesaurus today)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
            I know it's not you 'downvoting'. The forum is infected with a couple of militant trolls full of personal resentment.

            Emphasizing the nature of "duty" is essential, as explained in "Causality Versus Duty", not pedantic vocabulary.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by salta 5 months, 1 week ago
        The lexicon you linked to defines the meaning of duty. But the word, as I used it with the adjective "negative", is used in other ways. What is a better word for the necessity of NOT getting in the way of other peoples rights? Perhaps obligation? are they not synonymous?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
          There are no duties, period. That includes "negative" duties. "Duty" is often confused with obligationd specified under law.

          The "negative" aspect is important, but is not a "duty". "As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights." -- from "Man's Rights". That is choice you make to be moral for reasons you understand, not "duty".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by salta 5 months, 1 week ago
            You are saying the same thing as I said, except using the word obligation instead of duty. If you look in any dictionary or thesaurus, those words are almost interchangeable.
            Trying to impose a hyper-restrictive use of language does not help persuade anyone who disagrees with you. It even irritates people like me who 100% agree with you on the principle.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
              Understanding the difference between duty and rational choice based on agreement "for reasons you understand" is not "hyper-restrictive use of language". It is fundamental. The full explanation in "Causality Versus Duty" has been referenced here several times. No one is using "hyper-restrictive use of language" to "persuade anyone who disagrees".

              This is an Ayn Rand forum and answers to basic questions should be given with proper concepts and essential distinctions, not package deals and anti-concepts invoking the notion of "duty", which is fundamentally antithetical to Ayn Rand's philosophy.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by salta 5 months, 1 week ago
                As I said, the words obligation and duty are used interchangeably. Your quote from Rand (2 posts ago) means the exact same thing as my original post.
                But now you are bringing in the phrase "rational choice". Yes, that is a different concept completely. Rational choice is internal mental function. Whereas obligation/duty only relates to interactions with other people, and is on a different conceptual level as well. For example, I have an obligation/duty (high level concept) to respect property rights. I arrive at that by rational choice (lower level concept), because I also want my property rights respected by others.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                  Obligations arise in many ways. That concept is not the same as duty and duty is not restricted to interactions with other people, as in "duty to God".

                  "Rational choice" was not just brought up as a new topic. I originally referred to the "choice you make to be moral for reasons you understand, not duty", and rationality is essential in Ayn Rand's "Causality Versus Duty".

                  The quote from Ayn Rand is not the same as what you said. There are no duties. "Negative duty" is a kind of duty. Ayn Rand rejected any rational role for the anti-concept 'duty'.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by salta 5 months, 1 week ago
                    Ok if you have a god, you might have a duty. Also with pets, you have an obligation/duty to take it to the vet when necessary. My point is it is about interactions with others (other than self). But choice is an internal process. Using the word "versus" between two structurally different concepts makes little sense.
                    If duty is an anti-concept, then isn't negative duty an anti-anti-concept?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                      You wrote, "obligation/duty only relates to interactions with other people". It isn't true. The philosophical concept 'duty' does not pertain only to "interactions with other people", and 'obligation' and 'duty' are not interchangeable. You don't have a 'duties' at all, including to pets, or a 'duty' to not do something. "Negative duty" is a kind of 'duty', an invalid concept, as explained in "Causality Versus Duty".

                      Using the word 'versus' between 'causality' and 'duty' makes the sense explained in the article. Acting out of 'duty' rejects recognition of and acting in accordance with causality, i.e., rational requirements for living on earth. The verbal scrambling in "If duty is an anti-concept, then isn't negative duty an anti-anti-concept" makes no sense at all. Words are not floating tokens to be manipulated without meaning and context.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CaptainKirk 5 months, 1 week ago
    No. But collectively they can.
    The CONTRACT of living in a social society my come with duties, in order to ENFORCE rights.

    This would be things like:
    - Jury Duty
    - Required Military Duty
    - Paying Taxes.

    But this is the CORE difference. No individual gets a direct ability to impose a duty on others. Doing so, makes the liable (for damages, losses, etc).
    Although, in order to protect the rights of ALL Citizens, duties can be imposed by the duly elected government to make sure things function properly.

    the more interesting question to me: Does our government OWN us, CONTROL us, or WORK FOR us?
    Because there is abundant evidence that governments are behaving as though they OWN and CONTROL us, and very little to show they WORK FOR us.
    Hence the united states, with an income tax, can borrow from other countries, and point out that they can always increase the income tax (A form of slavery, if any).

    We have moved the Overton Window way too far!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      Rights do not imply duty. "Collectively they can" and "duty can be imposed by the duly elected government" are collectivism. There is no implied imposed "contract". "Duty" is an invalid concept https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... and has no place in a moral society.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CaptainKirk 5 months, 1 week ago
        So, living in a society...

        I have NO DUTY to abide by the stated laws?

        I have NO DUTY to respect your property (ie, not take it, and not damage it)?

        ==
        I challenge that. I Believe I do!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
          You have no moral "duties" at all, which invalid concept has long-standing philosophical meaning that is deadly. It does not mean recognizing, understanding, and agreeing with principles such as private property or complying with proper law in a free society.

          See Ayn Rand's article "Causality Versus Duty", which has been referred to here several times. It is in the anthology Philosophy: Who Needs It and can be read at https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1970... It is very important to understand.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  CaptainKirk 5 months, 1 week ago
            So, then you prefer I have an Obligation?

            The challenge I face is if no person in society can be held to a level of behavior acceptable to said society, then it is a HORDE.

            If there is such an expectation, then there is at least an Obligation to behave in accordance with that society, or get out, or be punished by that society.

            Or what of those who seek to destroy the society? We do what is being done now, and protect them?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
              Did you read the article? This is a matter of understanding basic concepts and distinctions, not preference for a word.

              You should accept and practice the principles of individual rights based on your understanding of why they are true, not a duty to submit without regard to the meaning and consequences of what you do, as if you have no moral choice.

              If enough people don't, then we do have a "horde", and if they accept it as 'duty', then we have both a herd and a horde -- and a herd following a master cannot be a moral society either.

              When criminals violate rights they should be prosecuted and punished by a proper government representing those who do understand as a right of self defense, not protect the criminals.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  CaptainKirk 5 months, 1 week ago
                I read the article. Hence the comment. The article prefers Obligation over duty.
                The nuances on words are tough, but I get the accuracy issue. I am willing to say Obligation instead of duty.
                The challenge is during communications with others (like myself before) who did not have the nuanced difference between the two words.

                You could be having a completely different conversation than you think you are having. Communication is NOT just what was said, but how it is interpreted. My favorite example of Marc Anthony's Oration over Caesars grave. He did not say one bad word about Brutus, and yet turned a crowd of Brutus supporters against Brutus. There is what is SAID, what is MEANT, and what is UNDERSTOOD. There is where AI will struggle for some time. Spelling certain words instead of saying them, or using a word that rhymes.

                So, to make sure we are on the same page, where do these things fall on the Duty/Obligation scale:
                - Jury Duty
                - Stopping for a Police Officer
                - Stopping for a red light
                - Being asked to move your car that is blocking someones driveway, but clearly on a public street.
                - Paying Property Taxes

                Seriously... Thank you. As others read this, they will learn as well...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by LarryHeart 5 months, 1 week ago
                  There are many here who do not Understand what is meant by what is said. Thank you for pointing out this distinction.

                  I find it difficult to communicate with people who respond from their own interpretation and are unwilling despite explanations to understand what is meant.

                  For instance, as you can see on this thread, the reaction to the mention of anything that smacks of "Religion" is to demean and reject everything said and sometimes the person saying it.

                  . Instead of processing what is meant and having a rational discussion with logical refutation of what they believe is incorrect or moving the conversation into a learning and sharing experience, it becomes an irrational fight to prove the "Wrongness" of what they rejected out of hand.

                  Denial replaces actual proof.

                  Hence my retort of trying to open that person's mind and pointing out the bias and prejudice which prevents what is said from getting through to their brain to parse its meaning much less coming to the point of understanding. . Likely That person has not even read what was written.

                  But even the idea of a rejection filter being in place is rejected because of their "conviction" that they do not have a bias or prejudice. They believe themselves to be perfectly "rational" and can quote what they believe Ayn Rand meant.

                  Finally if their second rejection of rational superiority is not accepted they resort to "guidelines" to protect their misunderstanding by claiming a violation of speech protocols.

                  That is why I insist that the person is only looking for agreement with their opinion at that stage.
                  Is that any different from the religious they despise saying "Reject this blasphemy and repent".or crying "Heresy" and refusing to listen?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 1 week ago
      Well stated. In the recognition of individual rights and the codified/express recognition of others rights, we may take on certain duties such as those you mentioned. But such is an individual, voluntary choice - not one pressed upon us by others.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
        Rational, intellectually and morally independent individuals do not "take on duties". "Duty" is an immoral notion that is a fundamentally insidious, invalid concept at its root. It does not mean rationally assuming a responsibility by choice. Acceptance of "duty" in a "voluntary" duty mentality is no better than "voluntary" altruism, "voluntary" mysticism, or any other kind of "voluntary" irrationalism. See http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/dut... and Ayn Rand's entire article "Causality Versus Duty" in Philosophy: Who Needs It.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 months, 1 week ago
    I have wondered about this. Having rights widely respected seems to rest on having a criminal justice system to stop thugs from denying people rights. Does that mean we have a "duty" to provide that system? I don't know the answer.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      There are no duties. "The meaning of the term 'duty' is: the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/dut...

      The principle of individual rights requires only that the rights of others be respected if you expect to live in a civilized society, and that requires a government limited to protecting rights. Rights are a moral concept, not a duty. The civil rights protected by government should be based on and implement rights identified philosophically. If someone violates others' rights, he will be treated accordingly, but their are no duties..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  5 months, 1 week ago
        What about the right to fair trail by jury?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
          The right to a certain kind of trial is a civil right, not a philosophical right. It presupposes a proper kind of government for the proper purpose, and is a means of implementation to try to ensure justice under criminal prosecution.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  5 months, 1 week ago
            “Rights are a moral concept, not a duty.“
            But there is jury duty imposed by this right. This right requires duty of others.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
              Whether or not you agree with a legal requirement to serve on a jury with or without qualification, there is no moral duty to serve others. Serving on a jury may be a rational, moral activity to help ensure justice under a proper government, which is in your self interest, but not without qualification. Helping others is not a moral primary. The "right" to a trial by jury and other procedures designed for justice under criminal law is a civil right defining required procedures and limitations on government, not a "duty".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  5 months, 1 week ago
    Walter Williams talks about rights,
    https://youtu.be/nrT0kBeld3Q

    So the question really might be, “Is respect for or non-interference of an individual right a duty on others?”

    In another forum this statement was made,
    “It is impossible to extrapolate a right from the duty of the right.”

    Then there was this statement,
    “As individuals within a society, we have no absolute rights. The statement, in and of itself, is not contrary to, but, complimentary of the philosophy and foundation of our government, in the belief of one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

    I asked for more clarification on this.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 1 week ago
      I think that what one really has to differentiate is in active vs passive recognition. We may have a passive duty to recognize others rights insofar as not to abridge them, but that isn't the same as an active recognition of enablement or agreement. I think that's where a lot of social justice warriors get things hopelessly confused in that they equate a right with an active obligation on the part of others for every right. This is just simply false. The only active duty we have as individuals is to act within the proper expression of our own rights ie via expression which neither abridges another's rights nor implies an active duty on their part. The latter is called coercion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
        There are no moral "duties". "Passive recognition" of a duty makes no sense. Active minds do not either "actively" or "passively recognize" duties.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 5 months, 1 week ago
    Others have a duty to be responsible for themselves. Just as we have a right to express our earned individual rights, without interference from others. When it is for mutual benefit and equal responsibility to interact or work together, then both parties are expressing their individual rights. Anything that leads to collectivism is evil.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by BiggestShoelaces 5 months, 1 week ago
    No, there is no such thing as duty, most certainly not with individual rights
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 5 months, 1 week ago
      Right. 'Rights' and 'duty' are contradiction in terms. A right is a freedom of action without need for permission. Once a requirement of permission to act, then act is no longer a right.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
        A moral right to freedom of action does not cease to exist when someone demands their permission for it. Morality does not become no longer morality. Statism prevents moral behavior.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 5 months, 1 week ago
          A right to act is the freedom to act within one's natural abilities as a particular type of animal. That freedom of action does not stop because of governments, property rights, etc. What stops is the liberty of performing the action, not ability to try to act in some context. I did phrase my last sentence wrongly. Even without liberty to act, one still has the moral ability to make the choice to act and accept the consequences from laws or persons impeding the action. It takes moral courage to do so and the chance of losing one's life.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
            When you have a gun to your head you do still have the ability to act against it and be shot. But that isn't necessarily courageous, it may be unethically foolhardy, and it isn't what is meant by denying that a moral right "ceases to exist". The principle of the right always exists, but you can be physically compelled to not act in accordance with it -- which we see all the time as our rights, which don't cease to exist as principles proper to man, are denied by brute force as we futilely protest, "but I have a right ..."

            It also isn't about a generality of natural abilities of a particular kind of animals. Rights are moral principles that pertain specifically to human beings as the "rational animal", with the emphasis on rational, not animal.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by lrshultis 5 months, 1 week ago
              So you are saying that as rational beings, humans can conceptualize from objective reality what is free actions qua man and to be free to reify the concepts as existing in reality. Moral concepts exist only in minds created by brains and are various chemical and physical relations in the brain. They have to be discovered by observing relationships between oneself and others. They are not something which one is born with, being tabula rasa at birth. Once formed the concepts must be taught to others almost like memes. Morals are concepts by which one chooses to deal with reality, they are not something born in and must be rationally created by observation and rational thought. If one tries to reify them, one ends up with a number of metaphors about reality and thus loose part of one's understanding.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                I didn't say anything about reifying abstractions. Rational people don't do it.

                Principles are not discovered as chemical and physical relations in the brain. Conceptual knowledge must be formulated objectively based on perception of reality, whatever the biological form taken by knowledge within the brain, and no one starts with innate knowledge.

                Rational understanding is accomplished through proper use of concepts, including abstractions in a hierarchy, not "memes" and not restricted to observation by itself: Abstract principles are not perceived.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by lrshultis 5 months, 1 week ago
                  Nowhere did I indicate that principles are discovered as chemical and physical relations in the brain.
                  A principle is a concept and as such does not exist in reality other than in a mind which has formed the concept from observation of objective reality and then stored in the brain in chemical-physical processes. There are many principles of brain activity that are formed by observation of the chemical relationships within brains, none of which are exactly the same. If you want to try to say that a principle, as a concept, does not exist in a brain, but rather exists elsewhere, then you are trying to reify the concept of principle. A principle of morality is formed by observations of relationships between selves living in the objective world, with the concept former's own self as a standard of comparison, and what is necessary for their continued existences. Whether a self is able to create a good concept of reality depends on learning, by a selfish mind, of an extremely large amount of knowledge qua man. There is nothing in objective reality which will pop out to force one to even observe reality in a way that one need form any moral concept, observe those are who are amoral. It is a selfish mental process to recognize aspects of reality which might be good or bad to the one observing. Reality is conscious only in some living things, and only living things can choose to act and even act badly and reality will just be something which cannot act, feel, or care how a life is lived.
                  Concept formation is context related with the possibility that the abstraction is poorly done and apprehending the particular context necessarily to form a concept is not built into a mind but need be focused on, sometimes accidentally, which requires much mental practice.
                  E.g., the concept 'and' is formed by focusing on many different objects perceived through the senses or by rational thought about mental objects, abstracting them by ignoring anything other than that they exist as separate entities, consider them as group mentally, then the abstraction 'and' has been formed in a mind.
                  Hardly anyone learns a concept by an active process of concept formation. Most concepts are learned as dictionary definitions. No one forms more than a small number of concepts by abstracting from observation and rational thought, they just learn them from others and use them like memes passing from one person to another.
                  Rational people try reifying concepts quite often. Observe all the references to 'existing in time' or 'time flowing' where time is seen as some kind of real substance. The reference to 'Nature acting or trying do something', 'Nature punishing those who do not obey her', 'chemicals wanting to combine in certain ways', etc. Such metaphors can only occur by attempting to reify concepts. You might say such persons are not rational. Rationality is learned process with many pitfalls, such that it is hard mental work, in learning it. Just to do the mental work requires years of learning in a hostile environment of other people in families, schools, and the public.
                  How many of the maybe 20,000 or so concepts that you use, were actually formed by your observation of objective reality rather than just by dictionary definitions or just by how others seem to use them. If you do it by the latter two methods, that does not make you irrational, but only realistic due the tremendous time needed to do the objective research. Many of the concepts that I have are mathematical where they have very strict relationships to one another in their use and new such concepts formed when needed by rationally observing mental objects, i.e., concepts. Most though are just defined consistently with one another. Some relate to actions of real objects and are used to describe physical reality but others related to conceptual mental objects. Descriptions of reality involve various subsets of mathematics. Most of mathematics does not imply anything about objects in objective reality but only conceptual relationships which do not exist as real objects, e.g. concepts of twisters, pencils of extrema, tensors, etc.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                    Whatever this stream of consciousness is intended for it has nothing to do with anything I wrote. You apparently accused me of "saying that as rational beings, humans can conceptualize from objective reality what is free actions qua man and to be free to reify the concepts as existing in reality. Moral concepts exist only in minds created by brains and are various chemical and physical relations in the brain."

                    Ideas are not innate and the "chemical and physical relations in the brain" are irrelevant to discussion of ideas. None of it is relevant to the topic of the thread.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 months, 1 week ago
    How about this- Whoever feels his rights have been violated hires the government courts and police to enforce them at the expense of the person wanting redress if he loses, or at the expense of the perpetrator if he wins.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 months, 1 week ago
    Just a negative duty: to abstain from violating the individual's rights (including abstention from fraud ;that means the others must not voluntarily enter into a contract with the individual, and then unilaterally breach it).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      'Duty' is the wrong word. A "negative duty" to not do something is still a 'duty', and 'duty' as such is not the moral approach https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1970.... But that does not mean not to accept, based on your own understanding in principle, the moral obligation not to violate others' rights.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 months ago
        Well, perhaps "duty" was the wrong word. But you get the point, I hope.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  jbrenner 5 months ago
          As ewv pointed out, Ayn Rand and other philosophers have a much more specific definition of duty than the general population. Duty has a far more negative connotation in the Gulch than it does outside the Gulch.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 months ago
            It's more than connotation. It's fundamental, with different philosophies on different sides of whether it is negative. The Big 10 religionists here, especially those who 'downvote' Ayn Rand, do not see it as negative.

            As Ayn Rand observed, "there is a profound difference which people [in general] sense, but seldom identify". It's important to identify it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  jbrenner 5 months ago
              Indeed it is important to identify such profound differences. As usual, you continue to illustrate the importance of the correct philosophical underpinnings to progress in science and engineering. Thank you.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months ago
          "Duty" is the topic. That is why the article "Causality Versus Duty" is important to understand why one should abstain from violating rights in contrast to 'duty'.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by preimert1 5 months, 1 week ago
    I see "liberty" as a group thing, i.e., a group of free people mutually agreeing to rule themselves. Whereas "freedom" is nuanced as an individual thing wherein you rule yourself. The epitomy of freedom would be the old mountain men who lived or died by their own competence.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CTYankee 5 months, 1 week ago
    The only individual right which imposes a duty on others is the right to a trial by jury.

    Everything else that government imposes on the citizenry is overreach.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  5 months, 1 week ago
      This is a great observation. The right to a fair trial definitely would place a positive duty on a jury and such.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 1 week ago
        Only in the same sense as dealing with criminals imposes a “positive duty” on policemen. There should not be any such thing as “jury duty” in a free society. Jurors should be selected from those who voluntarily choose to be on a jury. And they should be compensated for their time, since they are assisting in the performance of a proper government function.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CTYankee 4 months, 2 weeks ago
          And exactly WHO will pay the jury? Furthermore, what expectations would I be able to place on a juror I paid for?

          The potential for abuse is why jury DUTY is selectively imposed by a draft from the citizenry.

          FWIW -- the easiest way to avoid serving on an actual jury is to tell the attorneys conducting voir dire that you "are really looking forward to sitting on the jury" -- I guarantee that you will be excused in less than 60 seconds!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 months, 2 weeks ago
            A jury duty draft is no more moral than a military draft. It is coercion, pure and simple. An alleged “potential for abuse” is no excuse for the imposition of involuntary servitude on a random subset of the population. Furthermore, jury “duty” opens the door to its own set of abuses.

            As to who should pay the jurors, they should be paid out of the same government accounts that pay the police, judges and other employees of the legal system. We should expect prospective jurors to meet certain qualifications for rendering verdicts, just as prospective candidates for other law enforcement occupations must meet certain qualifications for their respective roles.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rainman0720 5 months, 1 week ago
    Not sure they always do, but depending on what you think you have a right to, they can impose a duty on others.

    For example, if you believe that you have a right to health care, then you most certainly impose a duty on others. It forces a doctor to see you; it forces pharmaceutical companies to provide you with any medications you need; it forces medical equipment suppliers to make equipment available to you; it forces technicians to operate the machines to run the tests; etc.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by LarryHeart 5 months, 1 week ago
    Duty or responsibility comes in after one accepts the compact/contract of Civilized society that respects individual rights. If you live alone outside of society you have no duty.

    The only way to assure your own rights (from nature and nature's god) is to respect other's rights and to have a minimal use of force (police or govt) to protect from those who cheat.

    What the compact/contract contains depends on the society. The one that works best is to observe the principles of the Hebrew society which the US was modeled after.

    Do not murder,
    Don not Rob or Steal (Sorry no socialist redistribution by force)
    Manage Jealousy and don't covet the assets or spouse of anything of your neighbor,
    respect your parents and your history,
    Don't put respect for earthly authority over your natural rights (which is respect for nature and Nature's god),
    Don't bear false witness (lie in court or in gossip - libel, defamation ) and the one people always forget that the Hebrews contributed to the world... the weekend.
    Stop working and take a break once a week to be with family, community and connect to nature, God or whatever floats your spiritual boat.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      This country was founded on Enlightenment ideas emphasizing reason and individualism, not the Hebrews or commandments.

      That form of government is based on principles, not a pragmatist "what works". Government monopoly on the use of force is to be used for specific purposes protecting the rights of the individual, not a vague "minimum use of force".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LarryHeart 5 months, 1 week ago
        Read your history. Take a look at the great Seal of the United states that Benjamin Franklin designed. You will see the Tablets and Moses crossing the Reed Sea.

        Do you think Enlightenment principles sprang out of nowhere? That suddenly reason was invented in France, England and Europe?. Do you think Baruch Spinoza didn't get his ideas from the thousands of years of reasoning and case law of the Hebrew's Talmud?

        The philosophers of that time may have criticized the institutions of Religion but not the principles.

        Take a look at the seal of all the Universities of that time and you will see Hebrew letters and words. Fluency in both Latin and Hebrew was required. Go find out why. .
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
          The Enlightenment was made possible by the resurgence and application of Aristotelianism as the west climbed out of the Dark and Middle Ages of religion, not the Hebrews and thousands of year of their "case law". The religious principles of supernaturalism, superstition, and living for another world certainly were rejected.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LarryHeart 5 months, 1 week ago
            Clearly you didn't look at the evidence I presented. The Hebrews applied Aristotle's principles long before the backwards Europeans ever woke up.

            John Adams wrote Jefferson in 1813: "Philosophy, which is the result of reason, is the first, the original revelation of the Creator to his creature, man. When this revelation is clear and certain, by intuition or necessary inductions, no subsequent revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles, can supersede it. Philosophy is not only the love of wisdom, but the science of the universe and its cause. There is, there was, and there will be but one master of philosophy in the universe."

            That philosophy is stimulated by the Hebrew Language and the words of Moses. The Hebrew "religion" was never the problem in the "Dark ages" . It was the Catholic Church. and the Church of England and the mixing of Religion and State. Religious institutions not Religion. .

            Ever look at the Bill of Rights? More properly the Bill of Constraints on the government as the Constitution does not grant rights. Our rights are innate. What is the first thing? That Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion (Such as today's leftist ideology) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .
            .
            If it was freedom FROM Religion, which you generalize incorrectly as Supernatural and Superstition and living for another world then why would the Founders, ostensibly educated in Rationalism ever come up with this protection?

            You really should read more about the Founder's thinking. But Education today is more about brainwashing than learning. Anything related to Hebrews or Jews was taken out of history.. . Etymology since the Anti-Semitic early to mid 20th Century stops at Latin. As though there were never any languages before them. If you go back to the Dictionaries of the 1700's you will find Hebrew Roots of words absent in today's edited tomes. .

            There is only one civilization that has survived for thousands of years. Only one. The Hebrews. Ever wonder why? The Founder's did and they used those same principles.

            Did you ever read that the Founders considered Religion to be essential for a virtuous populace and for the American system to survive. Not because of superstition or any of the negatives you dredged up. Because of the 10 principles.

            Did you know that Alexander Hamilton attended Nevis Jewish School and that 25% of the free people there were Jewish. Did you know that the Founder's read the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew?

            Why is that important? Because the translations that give you your false impressions are inaccurate and can never capture the multiple meaning and truths revealed by the Hebrew Language itself. It is nothing like today's devolved languages. Hebrew and the original language that it and Akkadian and all the languages of that era are based on describes reality in a way that only today's science can.

            But why take my word. Do your own research if you can overcome the conditioning of Today's Politically correct propaganda.

            Here are some quotes from John Adams

            [I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish
            the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of
            a free constitution is pure virtue.

            (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams,
            Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston:
            Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

            [W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending
            with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution
            was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
            government of any other.

            (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams,
            Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston:
            Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

            The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property
            is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and
            public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not
            covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must
            be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or
            made free.

            (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams,
            Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston:
            Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
              Instead of claiming others don't "look at the evidence" for your rationalizations for religious revisionist history and appeals to selective, out of context, unrepresentative quotes, you should learn something about the history of western philosophy and the Enlightenment. The notion that the Enlightenment and the founding of this country were based on Hebrew religion, Moses, and religious commandments is preposterous.

              The Dark Ages and Middle Ages were in fact thoroughly dominated by religious other-worldliness mysticism and superstition, which shut down human progress and civilization for centuries. That is the result of other-worldliness mysticism and superstition, not a matter of which dogmas of what church are in charge.

              The founding of our secular government did in fact assure our right to freedom from religion. Ayn Rand's objective, secular ethics of rational egoism provides the moral foundation to justify and sustain a free society. This forum is not a place for you to push your religion and religious revisionist history.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Lucky 5 months, 1 week ago
              Various errors:

              The longest surviving civilizations have been that of China and what we call ancient Egypt.
              The history of the Jewish people contains achievement, brilliance, bravery, and culture. But this is not a civilization.

              multiple meaning and truths A description given to the Koran by its adherents.
              Many quotes from John Adams are given. His role in history requires his ideas to be regarded seriously, those that are wrong need not be given undue emphasis.

              Hebrews applied Aristotle's principles I understand there were serious clashes between Greek and Hebrew thinking which gave war. While both had admirable and distasteful elements, they cannot be said to be the same.

              I hesitate to encourage LarryHeart who is by no means an Objectivist, but how about doing a study to investigate the Jewish origins, if any, of Ayn Rand's thinking? I suggest there are links but only in her analytical ability to think outside the box and to confront established superstitions, rather updating remnants of the ideas of ancient nomads. That is, what could be expected from a minority culture who respect family, literacy and self sufficiency whose success so antagonized others that it produced isolation and persecution.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LarryHeart 5 months, 1 week ago
                I did not say the greeks and Henbrews were the same. In the end who won? Greek pagan culture is no more. Egypt is not Egyptian. It is Muslim. Nothing survives into the present day except the Jews who received guidance from an interface with the underlying intelligence in which we exist. Nothing supernatural about that. It is nature.

                And now we see the underlying bias that colors your comments and your thinking. The hidden Anti-Semitism.that lies underneath. So, It is the Hebrews fault that they have been persecuted?. You quote from the Koran and spout the same ugly rhetoric as the Islamic hate culture.
                Ayn Rand is Jewish but that did not influence her thinking? How about the persecution by Religion haters like you in the Soviet Union? After all the persecution is her fault for being Jewish and smart in your warped thinking. Good luck to you. .
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                  Wrapping yourself in martyrdom is not a rational argument.

                  Rejecting promotion of fantasies of religion and religious revisionist history is not an "underlying bias" of "hidden anti-semitism" and "warped thinking" by "haters" like the "Soviet Union". Such accusations are disgusting.

                  Please review the guidelines for posting here.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Lucky 5 months, 1 week ago
                    Wrapping yourself in martyrdom is not a rational argument. Excellent.
                    Bertrand Russell made a similar statement-
                    Victimhood does not confer virtue.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LarryHeart 5 months, 1 week ago
                    You are rejecting anything that contradicts your opinion. Maybe you are the one promoting your fantasy that religion is fantasy. And since when is there a prohibition against having a discussion because you call it a fantasy? You just don't want to be contradicted. You can't handle it.

                    What you call history that you rely on IS the revisionist history. Most of what people today think they know just isn't so, Trying to open your mind is not against any guidelines. It is just futile. Good night.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                      The reasons for rejecting these religious fantasies have been given. It isn't just "opinion". This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism, not religion. Faith and dogma are not a basis for rational discussion.

                      He who has an "open mind" quickly has it filled with garbage. I have an active mind, which is not "open" to variations on what I know to be false. This isn't the place for you to promote "opening minds" to be "open" to your religion.

                      "You can't handle it" is personal projection, not rational argument. Nor does anyone here have an "underlying bias" of "hidden anti-semitism" and "warped thinking" by "haters" like the "Soviet Union". Please review the guidelines for posting here.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Lucky 5 months, 1 week ago
                  Decisions. An angry post may be directed at a post of mine.
                  Should I give it a down-vote for being wrong, illogical, and for bad spelling?
                  Or, should it get an up-point for giving me the pleasure of giving gratuitous advice (as follows)?
                  Anger may have its place, by all means put your anger in writing, but send the letter or press send only after an interval.

                  The poet from old Persia, Omar Khayyam, wrote:
                  "The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
                  Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
                  Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
                  Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it."
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                    You would on those grounds upvote yourself if you could, not a bad post. You can downvote a post for being illogical, unresponsive, or not contributing to the discussion and you can report a personal attack violating forum guidelines (and civil behavior) with the 'flag' link.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo