About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 5:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn Wrote:
Don't you think that's a tad patronizing, Bob.  At least for me, that position has roots that go much deeper.


Been on vacation for a while, but I thought I'd reply.

I can understand how that can be seen as patronizing.  However I have seen this anti-government position very often expressed pretty much as a pathological authority-distrust thing.  I believe that Rand's form of government is just not feasible one in the real world.  There are many examples of when it is very clearly rational for people to be "told" or "forced" to do or not to do something or however you want to put it. 

Bob

(Edited by Mr Bob Mac on 3/16, 5:45pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 61

Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 10:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob Mac wrote,
I have seen this anti-government position very often expressed pretty much as a pathological authority-distrust thing. I believe that Rand's form of government is just not feasible one in the real world. There are many examples of when it is very clearly rational for people to be "told" or "forced" to do or not to do something or however you want to put it.
There is a fundamental alternative here: Either you own yourself, or you are the property of someone else. If you own yourself then you have a right to make your own decisions free from interference by others. If you are the property of someone else, then the person who owns you has the right to make those decisions. There is no third alternative. So, if I have the right to force you to do something against your will, then you are not the owner of your life and actions; I am.

Now, it is impossible for me to own you, if I don't also own myself. However, if I have the right to own you, then there is no principle which says that you don't also have the right to own me. But if you have the right to own me, then I cannot be said to own myself, in which case, I cannot own you.

Therefore, the principle that some people have the right to own others is self-contradictory. It cannot be logically or consistently maintained, in which case, it follows that each and every person is properly a free and independent human being, with full autonomy over his or her own life and actions.

- Bill

Post 62

Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 11:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Wanna see all hell break loose? Try dealing with the question of who owns a stray child.

(I'm still bothered by this.)

Or how about this question: Are children property?

Michael



Post 63

Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 11:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How about these questions:
What does it mean for one thing to own another thing?
What does it mean for one thing to be the property of another?

Post 64

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 1:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

Since you attribute volition to inanimate objects, I presume you will attribute property rights to inanimate objects, too. Am I wrong?

Michael


Post 65

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 9:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK,

What is an inanimate object? What is volition? What is a right? What is property? What is a property right? What is intelligence? What is freedom? What is control? What is sensation? What is living? If you do not learn the definitions I use for these words, then how can I discuss the relationships between such things with you?

Something currently exists. Everything that currently exists is Reality. Reality changes. There currently exists at least one set of parts of Reality that have entities that interact with each other, and we are both a part of this set of parts of Reality.

An inanimate object is an object that does not sense and is not conscious.

What is sensation? Sensation is one part of Reality's state changing due to its interaction with another part of Reality. No sensation means no interaction. No interaction means non-existent or not in our set.

Want to change the definition of "inanimate object" to an object that is not conscious? Then at least we would be talking about something that is in our set.

What is consciousness? Consciousness is the operations that parts of Reality perform as Reality changes. Operations means parts of Reality changing from a starting state to an ending state, to interact with oneself. A set of parts of Reality lacking interacting between its parts... this would be one of the most fundamental parts of Reality.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 11:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

The idea of identifying terms is a good one. It is more than a courtesy and it is an intellectual need - if honest discussion is the value - that cuts both ways. So it is a good idea not only to talk, but to listen. As the saying goes, we have two ears and one mouth. A wise man pays attention to this proportion.

You ask:
Want to change the definition of "inanimate object" to an object that is not conscious?
I prefer to go even deeper. Before I get to "not conscious," I prefer to set the defining parameters of "alive" and "inanimate."

Life is the crucial difference. Consciousness is a state that applies only to living entities. Do you have a working definition of life?

Michael


Post 67

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 12:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A life form is set of parts of reality that perform self sustaining and self generating action. An action is an operation. Different sets of parts of reality perform different sets of actions. Some of the actions are self sustaining, some self destroying. Some of the actions are self generating, some degenerating. Some actions are more intelligent then others. Intelligence is a measure of how capable a part of reality is at learning ideas that are consistent with reality and making predictions that are consistent with future observations. Useful intelligence is goal directed intelligence, where one is comparing the predicted results of various known available actions and then choosing to perform the action that one predicts will result in maximizing gaining or keeping of values.

Post 68

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 2:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael Kelly wrote,
Bill,

Wanna see all hell break loose? Try dealing with the question of who owns a stray child.

(I'm still bothered by this.)

Or how about this question: Are children property?
Both good questions, Michael. I would say that children are not property, and that nobody owns the stray the child. The child owns himself, but if he wants adult help and support, then he must be willing to consent to adult guidance and supervision. If he places himself under the care of adoptive parents, then he must abide by the parents' rules; if the parents violate the conditions of the agreement by failing to give the child proper support and guidance or by abusing him or her, then the child can request a change of parental support. He or she can ask to be adopted by someone else. But there has to be demonstrable evidence of neglect or abuse in order for the request to be granted. Some native American tribes permitted children of a certain age to choose their parents, instead of being tied to them by an accident of birth. I think this is something worth considering. Children should have some say in who supports and supervises them.

Dean, you asked:
What does it mean for one thing to own another thing? What does it mean for one thing to be the property of another?
It means that the owner has the right to determine the use and disposition of that which he or she owns. So, if a person owns himself, then he has the right to direct and control his own actions and his bodily disposition, which is why no human being can properly own another. Ownership of another person presupposes self-ownership and is simultaneously inconsistent with it. If I can own you, then by the same logic, you can own me, which would negate my right to self-ownership and, accordingly, my right to own anything other than myself. Self-ownership is an equal right, which applies to all self-responsible human beings without exception.

- Bill


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 69

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 4:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Here's another question, then. Does a stray child (say in the first year of life) own himself to the extent that he better obey some adult in order to trade obedience for his survival?

Dean,

Your definition of life falls flat since it does not include birth, death or growth, much less an individual existence. And that's just for starters.

Michael


Post 70

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 10:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael K. wrote,
Bill,

Here's another question, then. Does a stray child (say in the first year of life) own himself to the extent that he better obey some adult in order to trade obedience for his survival?
No, because at that age the child can't make any rational decisions, and therefore cannot exercise self-ownership. If the stray child is that young, his or her fate is in the hands of whoever is willing to provide the needed support.

- Bill


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 71

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 12:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

(I'm asking this seriously.)

Does this stray infant have a right to life in our society? If so, how?

If not, I have no problem with anyone stating that. I do have a problem with accepting it for my own values.

Still, I would much prefer a clear statement that such a child has no right to life than a rationalization of the type, "a right to life is not a guarantee of survival," which completely begs the context of the child's lack of capacity.

As I understand the Objectivist view that is defended by many, a child has a right to life if such can be provided by his parents. If he has no parents, theoretically people claim that he has some kind of right (this part is usually very vague), but in practice, he has none - merely a right not to be "forced" to do anything, whatever that means at that age.

The logical contradiction is in (1) defining a child as a human being, thus being a bearer of individual rights, and (2) defining a child as unable to fully exercise them, thus being incumbent on adults to provide his needs until he matures.

If a child is unable to exercise a right, then he doesn't really hold it. It is actually held by others. Correct?

Michael



Post 72

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 6:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As I understand the Objectivist view that is defended by many, a child has a right to life if such can be provided by his parents. If he has no parents, theoretically people claim that he has some kind of right (this part is usually very vague), but in practice, he has none - merely a right not to be "forced" to do anything, whatever that means at that age.
Michael, I'm sure you know that the rights of an individual are recognized by the government because the government recognizes the individual. If someone in Canada claimed to be an American with rights, but no one in America has record of this individual being an American, he has no claim to American rights.

Children are legally attached to certain adults until the age of 18. The law must recognize a legal, recorded relationship between an adult and child before it can enforce any rights toward the child against those legally attached to it. 

The law will not, nor cannot, and should not,  make arbitrary legal attachments between one helpless individual to another able individual without prior consent and willingness of the able individual.  Those relationships are established, recognized, recorded, documented, and enforced with consent of the able individual. 

(Thanks Glen, you are so right!) 

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 4/03, 7:47am)


Post 73

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 7:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa said:
The law will not, nor cannot, make arbitrary legal attachments between one helpless individual to another able individual without prior consent and willingness of the able individual.
Teresa: I think that in order to answer Michael's question, you need to add the following:
The law should not make arbitrary legal attachments between one helpless individual to another able individual without prior consent and willingness of the able individual.
Thanks,
Glenn


Post 74

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 7:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa,
Children are legally attached to certain adults until the age of 18.
My understanding, then, from your post is that you hold that a stray infant has no individual rights (other than not to be coerced), since he is not legally attached to an adult. Is that correct? I ask the same question of Glenn, since he manifests the same idea with different words.

Michael


Post 75

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 8:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My understanding, then, from your post is that you hold that a stray infant has no individual rights (other than not to be coerced),
A "stray" child (whatever that means) is legally attached to a specific adult, not to just any adult. Children don't drop out of sky.  Individuals in this country who give birth to children and then abandon them are prosecuted for violating that child's rights, so I'm not sure why you think children have no rights. Obviously, the law holds that those who create a dependent also be responsible for ensuring that the dependent's right to live is upheld.

Unless all rights to a child are surrendered to another responsible party, and that act is documented and recorded in some way, giving birth is a legally recognized act of attaching one'self to another. 

Giving birth in secret, then abandoning that infant in secret, is absolutely a violation of that infant's rights, but the abandoning parent is the culprit.  Any finder of the child is innocent.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 4/03, 8:09am)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 76

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 8:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa,

As I understand it, your position is that a stray infant's rights have been violated by his parents (by stray infant, I mean an infant who is obviously abandoned and is not yet old enough to care for himself). As his rights have been violated, then there is a guilty party and society can offer no further legal protection to him.

Essentially, in a society of adults who have no parental attachment to him, he has no individual rights other than the ones that have been violated by his parents.

Is that correct?

Michael


Post 77

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 9:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 As his rights have been violated, then there is a guilty party and society can offer no further legal protection to him.

Essentially, in a society of adults who have no parental attachment to him, he has no individual rights other than the ones that have been violated by his parents.

Is that correct?
Again, do children have rights? Yes. Are those rights enforceable against any adult to insure a child's survival? No. Why? Because the law can and should only uphold the rights of children through voluntary relationships with adults. Why? Because individuals are responsible for what they alone produce in society. They are not responsible for what other's produce.  

A free society doesn't guarantee the survival of anyone, including abandoned children. It only recognizes the rights of adults to exercise their freedoms of action to further their own survival, and, by proxy, those of their children.

Protection of children's individual rights is the responsibility of those adults with a legally recognized relationship with the child. Rights don't guarantee survival, nor do they even suggest they should.

Aside from the moral reprehensibility of an ignoring adult who is not legally responsible for a child, you're going to have to show some legal cause to force a legal relationship that would guarantee a child's right to survive.

Are an abandoned child's rights being violated? Yes. Is an ignoring adult with no legal responsibility violating them?  I think not.  If you say he/she is violating the rights of another, you'll have to prove it, Michael.  Having rights doesn't mean their enforceable on any one. If you think they are, you'll have to prove that somehow.

 



Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 78

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 12:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa,

You're preempting. I am only asking a question. It seems to be difficult to get a clear answer without a bunch of preemptive qualifications about another matter altogether. However I think you did answer my question indirectly here:
It [society] only recognizes the rights of adults to exercise their freedoms of action to further their own survival, and, by proxy, those of their children.
If the word "only" is being used strictly, the deduction is that since a stray infant is (1) not an adult, and (2) does not have a parent near, then society does not recognize any rights for him.

To state this positively, in your understanding of Objectivism, a child's rights derive from obligations placed on his parents. In the absence of parents, he has no rights, other than freedom of action to further his own survival (which he cannot physically do).

Is it fair to say that?

Also, in legal terms for this, I am reminded of a definition in the first version (without Amendment 14) of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3) which defined "free persons," "Indians not taxed" and "all other persons," these last being the legal equivalent of three-fifths of a free person.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/03, 12:50pm)


Post 79

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 1:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Damn, MSK, bringing this up yet again?  You did that before in another thread(s). 

I think that in a free society, such a case would be very rare, and that there would be many willing adults able to take responsibility.  Currently, with the state mandated to do this, the results are abyssmal.  Many people who want a child cannot get one (and these would now be free to do so easily with no impediment from the state) and hence, no abandoned children would be an issue.  The alternative, state care, leads to what we have now.  I am also sure there would be charities to care for children as well, and I for one would willingly donate some money to them (again, in a free society especially so).  So, I think you are ultimately creating what I would consider a "lifeboat" scenario, or at least one that is damn close.

What if it were a conscious brain in a jar, but the brain needed energy in order to stay alive, and...

On a side note, the issue of "property" will be interesting if/when true AI takes place, won't it?


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.