Why protects rights just against people?

No one has a right to an unrestricted existence, which seems what is being claimed here - which means a lack of understanding of just what a right is, why it thus is, and what is necessitated in violating it...

There are no rights at the waterhole - they came into existence with sapiency, not sentiency [Singer's error]...
(Edited by robert malcom on 4/28, 7:17pm)

Post 21

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 8:50pm

Jordan,

The fact is, you are using an entirely different definition of rights than anyone here. John and Laurie are only trying to point that out for you, and getting frustrated. Storms, tides, earthquakes, and even diseases are simply elements of our environment - facts of life we live with, and must learn to survive. Unless you want to invoke Gaia theory, the environment doesn't have the volition needed to violate anyone's rights.

jt

Post 22

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 1:49am

Can we go back a couple of steps?

Kurt Eichert suggested that the government could pro-actively engage in protection against a storm (or swine flu) on the theory that a breakdown in lawful society would be bad. If a massive snowstorm prevents the government from acting, then it has failed to perform its function. It may be true that "nothing could be done" but that would depend on a case-by-case evaluation.

If this influenza outbreak assumes epidemic proportions, should your local government seal off the town?

It is not that swine flu violates your rights, but that the government exists to protect your life and property.

Coyotes and deer live in the parks of some cities. (Federal program to protect endangered species...) So, if a pack of coyotes were to be seen stalking a child, should the police stand around and do nothing on theory that feral canines are not moral agents and therefore cannot violate the righs of a child -- who in fact is the responsibility of the parents and not the city?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/29, 1:51am)

Post 23

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 6:30am

Can we simply say that protecting life and property are legitimate functions of government, paid for by its citizens, without also trying to infer that environment is some kind of volitional agent.

jt

Post 24

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 12:24pm

Thank you for the comments, jt, Michael, and Kurt. Your input is well-taken.

Robert, I don't mean to suggest that anyone has a right to unrestricted existence, only that bad non-human stuff can mess up the extent of your rights.

I think it's clear, but just in case -- we're talking about *legal* rights here.

Jordan

Post 25

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 2:55pm

Here's Will Thomas's recent piece from The New Individualist on "Individual Rights: The Objectivist View."

Post 26

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 5:30pm

The question of whether the government ought to help you during a natural disaster is not a question of rights. Because we pay taxes, and we are forced into it, the government at least must return services for those taxes, which could include emergency services during natural catastrophes. Then that would be a matter of contractual obligations. But the government doesn't need to be the entity that performs this function. During Katrina, many corporate brick and mortar stores like Wal-Mart and Home Depot were far more effective at providing disaster relief aid than the impotent government agency of FEMA. But let's not confuse the issue by asking what our rights have to do with hurricane winds or the force of gravity.

Post 27

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 7:22pm

JA: The question of whether the government ought to help you during a natural disaster is not a question of rights. Because we pay taxes, and we are forced into it, the government at least ... But let's not confuse the issue by asking what our rights have to do with hurricane winds or the force of gravity.

John, I have never known you to dodge an issue. You must find this complicated to resort to an answer like that.

(1) Let's go back to the coyotes and the little girl. It's an Objectivist society with a limited government paid for voluntarily. A police officer sees a pack of coyotes stalking a child. They are non-volitional entities, therefore, they cannot violate the rights of the child. The child is the responsibility of her parents, not of the city. Perhaps she is a baby, a non-volitional entity herself. Should the police interfere?

(2) The police in Dorothy, Kansas, receive word that a tornado is approaching. Word goes out to all cars and patrols. The police see that although the sky is tornado yellow and dark green, people are blithely unconcerned. In fact, the Rotary is setting up a picnic on their privately owned public park. Do the police act to help these adults who freely choose not to think? (Consider stormchasers who purposely engage such events.)

Do the police exist only to respond to the acts of volitional agents against other rational beings?

Do the police exist to protect your rights? Or to protect your life and property?

Post 28

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 7:23pm

If all folks have a right to be shielded from the consequences of hurricanes and disease, then who has the obligation and responsibility to provide the shielding for all folks?

The implication implies two classes of rights:

1] The right to be shielded by others, with no obligations.

Obviously, not everyone can posess that right, or there would be no 'others' to deliver the right. That means that some must not have that right, but only:

2] The obligation to shield oneself and others.

"Equal protection under the law" is thus impossible. To enforce this wishful thinking requires segregated group rights. Some have rights, others have only obligations.

Sounds like a religious argument. Belongs in church, not our politics.

Perhaps the Church of Social Scientology.

We sophisticates would never allow our nation be overrun by a religion calling itself a science, would we?

Would we?

regards,
Fred

Post 29

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 7:55pm

Michael I don't believe I dodged the question. The fact is we pay taxes for services, services that include our defense. Whether they be to protect our rights from assailants, or to protect us from natural catastrophers or wild beasts, they are still services we pay for (unfortunately unwillingly). But a coyote cannot be said to violate your rights, but that doesn't mean you can't pay other people to protect you from coyotes.

(1) Let's go back to the coyotes and the little girl. It's an Objectivist society with a limited government paid for voluntarily. A police officer sees a pack of coyotes stalking a child. They are non-volitional entities, therefore, they cannot violate the rights of the child. The child is the responsibility of her parents, not of the city. Perhaps she is a baby, a non-volitional entity herself. Should the police interfere?

The police have a contractual obligation to protect the child, since they have that contractual obligation, they must interfere or the would be derelict in their obligations to protect the citizens who paid for their services.

(2) The police in Dorothy, Kansas, receive word that a tornado is approaching. Word goes out to all cars and patrols. The police see that although the sky is tornado yellow and dark green, people are blithely unconcerned. In fact, the Rotary is setting up a picnic on their privately owned public park. Do the police act to help these adults who freely choose not to think? (Consider stormchasers who purposely engage such events.)

This one I'm confused and I think you left it too vague, what are the actions the police that can take you are proposing? How you worded this could range from forcibly removing residents and putting them into safe shelters, or simply warning them of the impending tornado, which again, presumably the government is contractually obligated to warn its citizens of an impending natural weather phenomenon (we pay taxes for a police department).

Do the police exist only to respond to the acts of volitional agents against other rational beings?

Do the police exist to protect your rights? Or to protect your life and property?

It depends on what they would be contractually obligated to do. Are you proposing individuals be forced into protecting people's safety without any contract? Or would you rather have them willingly enter into a contract for services that could include protecting the safety of their customers?

Post 30

Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 5:17am

Fred Bartlett: If all folks have a right to be shielded from the consequences of hurricanes and disease, then who has the obligation and responsibility to provide the shielding for all folks?

The government. That is the subject here. The question is, "Does the government exist to protect your rights, or does the government exist to protect your life and property?"

If the government exists only to protect your rights, then as above, if the police see a pack of coyotes circling a child, they are under no obligation to act because coyotes, (hurricanes, disease) being non-volitional, cannot violate rights.

John Armaos: ... Whether they be to protect our rights from assailants, or to protect us from natural catastrophers or wild beasts ... Or would you rather have them willingly enter into a contract for services that could include protecting the safety of their customers?

Well, that's what we are trying to figure out here. Again, the funding issue is not relevant here. The question is, given an objective government, what are its contractual obligations? I am glad that we all agree that the police must protect the child from the coyotes.

On a common sense basis, we might agree that simply warning people about the tornado might be enough and that dragging people to shelter might be too much. Is there some way to objectify that? What is the standard of judgment?

In one of my law enforcement classes, we had a guest lecturer from the executive protection function of an automotive security department. He said that protecting your charge from embarrassment is one of the duties of executive security. I am sure that you will agree that this is not a constitutional requirement of the public police operating under objective law.

We agree that you can contract for any kind of protection, but the question is, given an objective constitutional structure, what, indeed, are the duties of the police and armed forces? If the town is facing a flood, is it the duty of the police to sandbag the river? In the case of massive snow storms, should the national guard get out their heavy equipment and distribute MREs (meals ready-to-eat) to people in their homes?

According to strict Objectivism, it might not be the duty of the government to do those things. How then do we separate those from the little girl and the coyotes? What is the standard of judgement? What is the objective basis for evaluation?

Post 31

Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 7:26am

Michael:

re; If the government exists only to protect your rights, then as above, if the police see a pack of coyotes circling a child, they are under no obligation to act because coyotes, (hurricanes, disease) being non-volitional, cannot violate rights.

You've introduced a dependent 'child' into the argument, and compared a very managable 'pack of coyotes' to a hurricane and/or cancer. I would argue that any adult would feel that obligation to act under the circumstances you describe, including a government policeman. But extending that same argument to hurricanes and cancer is like saying "government has an obligation to shield every citizen from every instance of a pack of coyotes or mountain lions or alligators, etc." -- when it clearly can do no such thing. Not 'act when and where it can', but 'shield all citizens from the conseqeunces of those entities in the world, as a right.'

We have no 'right' to travel anywhere we want without fear of coyotes, mountain lions, and alligators, even if we claim the government has an obligation to protect all of us from all of them. That is no more reasonable than claiming we have a right to freedom of conseqeunces from hurricanes or cancer.

Children are also a special case. When it comes to rights and obligations and responsibilities, our tribe gives children a bye. They are total dependents.

If the police can predict that a sting ray or shark will be dangerously close to an adult Steve Irwin, RIP, are they under any paternalistic obligation to do anything at all?

What class of adults are entitled to treatment as children by the state, and what class of adults are obligated to be those adults' parents?

Cops, courts, jails, the military -- I get the Paradox of Violence, and the basic role of the state.

But we are talking about -- I thought -- an actual right to shielding from the consequences of actual instances of events like 'cancer' and 'hurricanes.' As in, way beyond research and prevention and early warning and other reasonable efforts beneficial to all without regards to class, but full shielding, and I'd have to assume, not just 'assurance' but 'insurance' against actual instances of loss/consequence in spite of all those other reasonable efforts, as a right?

I don't think a government that operates a system of meteorological imaging satellites is a 'right,' it is something that enough of the tribe has embraced as a 'nice to have', beneficial to all, even as it is in actual instances more to some than others. If it is a right, then that right was unfulfilled for the first 200 years of this nation... Ditto a government that conducts research into cancer cures; that isn't a 'right' that we're born with. It is an elected 'nice to have.' Our government is under no obligation to put up weather satellites and fund cancer research as part of any 'right' that we have, even as some of us agree or disagree, politically, that any or all of that should be done.

Ultimately what is done by the tribe is what the tribe permits, period, and that often has little or nothing to do with 'rights.' A government that was restricted only to enforcing agreed upon 'rights' would be ... a far smaller government than the one we've embraced. Our government does plenty of things that have nothing at all to do with 'rights.'

Rights are very odd things; Joan of Arc might have even possessed rights, even as she was burned at the stake. If you or I or the local mob on our behalf are unable or unwilling to enforce what we claim as rights, then rights are wishes on paper, the same paper that might be used as fuel for the fire the mob lights to immolate any one of us. We are perfectly able to loudly protest those rights, and even wave them in the air, even as the mob burns any one of us at the stake while we do so.

We try to dress that up, but it is what it is. If the mob decides that some are obligated to provide for others, then the mob will attempt to get what it wants.

regards,
Fred

Post 32

Friday, May 1, 2009 - 12:51am

A police officer has no obligation qua police officer to protect a child from a pack of coyotes. His job as a police officer requires only that he protect people from criminals. However, if we understand "obligation" in this context to mean simply that one should act to protect a child from danger if he can do so without unreasonably endangering his own safety, then yes, he is "obligated" to do so for the sake of the value that he places on an innocent human life. But again, this is an "obligation" that he would possess as a private citizen, not as a police officer. It is an obligation that could reasonably apply to any human being in a similar position regardless of his occupation.

As for Jordan's views on rights, it may help to define our terms. A right, according to Objectivism, is a moral principle defining and sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context. "Freedom of action" in this context means freedom from coercive interference by other human beings. It does not mean freedom from interference by national disasters. Otherwise a national disaster would have a moral obligation to abstain from interfering with your freedom, which is impossible, because a natural disaster is not a volitional agent capable of respecting or violating moral principles.

Jordan wrote,

When the mafia comes over and breaks your legs, your rights are left in a crappier state. When a tree blows over in a hurricane and breaks your legs, your rights are left in that *same* crappier state.

When the mafia breaks your legs, they injure you and violate your rights. When a hurricane breaks your legs, it injures you, but does not violate your rights. You could certainly say that in both cases your physical well-being has been "left in a crappier state," if by the latter you simply mean that you are physically worse off. But you cannot say that your rights are worse off, because your rights still exist and still have the same merit. The violation of your rights does not constitute their deprivation. If someone violates your rights, he does not deprive you of them or in any way damage, injure or destroy them. The condition of your rights -- the moral obligation which they place on other human beings -- remains the same regardless of whether or not they've been violated.

- Bill

Post 33

Friday, May 1, 2009 - 3:15am

WD: A police officer has no obligation qua police officer to protect a child from a pack of coyotes. ... to protect a child from danger if he can do so without unreasonably endangering his own safety ... But again, this is an "obligation" that he would possess as a private citizen, not as a police officer.

Mass-mediate imagery from television, newspapers, cinema and novels provide the false notion that the police risk their lives to protect your rights. It is true that young men, running on androgen and testosterone, place themselves in high-action, high-risk contexts. In point of fact, police training attempts to get into their minds the automatic response not to risk their lives. We see this in the differences in operational methodologies of women officers versus men and the college-educated patrollers versus the high schoolers. The police prefer not to respond unless they have assurances of overwhelming force. In the private sector, this is also the default position: your life and your property are not worth my life.

That said, I agree with Jordan's implicit thesis that the purpose of government is to protect your life and property (to whatever extent is objectively appropriate). In the examples cited above, the public police officers have a duty to warn against the tornado, to chase the dogs, even to sandbag the river -- getting the fire department to help would be a good idea -- and so on.

The idea that the police "fight crime" or "chase criminals" is false, limiting and self-defeating. Statistics are not supportive and arguments are available against, but among the ways that the public police prevent crime and mitigate against the breakdown in social order are "weed and seed" and "broken windows" two aspects of "community policing" that make life better for the people whom the police have been constituted protect.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/01, 3:39am)

Post 34

Friday, May 1, 2009 - 3:26am

FB: You've introduced a dependent 'child' into the argument, and compared a very managable 'pack of coyotes' to a hurricane and/or cancer.

The purpose of the child was to muddy the issue of "rights." We here know that a child does not have the rights of an adult. We here know that children are not the responsibility of the government, etc., etc.

The test is whether and to what extent government exist "to protect your rights" as opposed to protecting your life and property.

In the case above, the aggressors are non-volitional and the victim has limited "rights."

Post 35

Friday, May 1, 2009 - 7:27am

Bill I just have one tiny quibble with you in your post 32 first paragraph. The obligations of a police officer would be what he is contracted for. Whether that be for protecting individuals against criminals or rescuing house cats from trees, there is no exclusivity on what services they can agree to provide. Since no one has any intrinsic obligation to protect your rights, it only becomes an obligation once they agree to provide such services via a contract. Since the conditions of the contract can be whatever the police and those that employ him (the citizens who pay for this service) wish to be, those conditions can certainly include protecting individuals from wild beasts. I would expect that even if we had private police firms, there would be a demand for protection against a wild animal that was set loose on the neighborhood.
(Edited by John Armaos on 5/01, 7:32am)

Post 36

Friday, May 1, 2009 - 4:35pm

Bill,

I'm content to take the issue as you and Marotta have construed it. But again, I'm in no way contending that a disaster or disease "violates" rights, specifically *legal* rights. I *am* saying that you have fewer or less of your legal rights after the you go through a disease or disaster. Your legal rights become lesser or fewer because the freedoms you had by virtue of your disease- and disaster-free life become lesser or fewer. Maybe you don't have working legs after you go through a disease. This remains a plain fact. And of course, unlike when someone attacks you, under Objectivism, the government provides no recourse for you to get your rights back to where they were.

To me the interesting question is over the government's role *before* the traumatic event takes place. Marotta has suggested that the police's role extends past mere protection against aggressors. Bill suggests that police as moral agents, but not as police, have such an obligation.

Jordan

Post 37

Friday, May 1, 2009 - 8:30pm

We�ve all seen that their cars say �Serve and Protect� but it is my understanding that current law requires no such things of them.

I hope Jordan can expand on this and correct me as needed. I have seen cases where the police win lawsuits that I cannot imagine private security firms winning.

From crude memory: A woman has been stalked for weeks. She comes home to a broken door and calls the police. The police come and take notes. She fears her stalker is inside and begs the police to go inside with her. They tell her they�re sure he must have moved on by now�it�s late. They leave. She goes inside and is raped by the stalker.

And the courts rule, every time, that there is no obligation to �protect� her, so the police cannot be at fault.

Post 38

Friday, May 1, 2009 - 11:05pm

(Edited by Jordan on 5/01, 11:06pm)

Post 39

Friday, May 1, 2009 - 11:05pm