From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Rights
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:15:59 GMT

In article <93008.151415SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.114258.13118@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>,
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) says:
>
>This raises an interesting question. What do we mean by rights, on what
>basis do we articulate them, and how do we defend them?
>

The two ways which I see are most clear to at least point out the
utility if not the justification of the notion of individual rights is
the axiomitic approach, arguing from the position that the individual
is sovereign, or from a more pragmatic approach by examining the nature
of dissent in a society and how dissidents in a society are or should
be treated.

>My definition of rights bases them on the nature of the human condition;
>hence the term "God-given rights". Our right to life, to free speech,
>etc. stem from our nature as living, sentient individuals. And since we
>need to interact with the physical world to live, some form of rights
>over the world we live in would seem necessary.
>
>If I read you right, you define rights as the rules or limitations
>required to maintain a zone of freedom around an individual. I consider
>that also a good definition.
>
>But I think you err when you call objectivism "extremist". Extremism
>has no meaning; just because people differ strongly from you on the
>political spectrum does not make them wrong. A better objection to
>objectivism rests not on any alleged extremism, but on the circular
>argument at its core.
>
>Objectivism contends that we have only passive rights, not obligations.
>It claims the doctrine of "individualism" as authority for this
>statement. But what lies at the core of individualism? This notion of
>human rights. I boils down to the statement that we have the rights we
>have because we have the rights we have. And around we go.
>

But since Objectivists use a different "language" than the usual
language, for people to understand what they are talking about in
the conventional sense, translation is necessary...and I prefer
translating an example of why Objectivism fails, in my opinion, on
common sense notions of what liberty means.  Objectivism-speak is
confusing to people who are not used to it.  Although I have been
criticizing Objectivism (and libertarianism) a great deal, I think
most people should read "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged"...
because although I think Objectivism (and libertarianism) are flawed,
there say a lot of worthwhile things that are worth thinking about.
Rand certainly gives a different perspective on the world, and it
is good (shock) therapy for those who don't think much about liberty
or about how important it is for every individual to be an activist
for liberty...except the precise notion of liberty as defined by
Rand or an Objectivists is too narrowly focussed and slightly skewed,
and they don't really investigate the practical difficulties of
actually creating a sustainable limited democratic government which
respects individual rights...and the consequences of this for liberty.

>In fact, I think we both agree out individuality makes our rights
>important; social insects such as termites need no rights. But I would
>argue that the idea that we have responsibilities to one another also
>stems from our individuality. Our individuality makes us valuable.
>And that, I think, represents the best argument for social
>responsibility; I ought to be willing to surrender part of my property
>to bolster the lives of others, because I can replace my property; I
>can never replace another person.
>

The problem, however, is not that most people aren't willing to surrender
some property to bolster the lives of others, but that the government
is overeager to take more and more of it... 
...for almost every purpose imaginable under the
the sun, and often not to bolster the lives of those in need, and
usually in not well-thought-out ways.

Just once, it would be nice to see a socialist or statist say...perhaps we
should justify why it is necessary to tax to a particular purpose...
to demonstrate that the spending is unequivocally useful, or at least
probably useful, and use more than an ideological justification, and
show a little consideration for the taxpayer.

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada