Worth Reading Again

Q&A with Ayn Rand

What are rights?

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness


A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.

If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.

If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.

Do not make the mistake, at this point, of thinking that a worker is a slave and that he holds his job by his employer’s permission. He does not hold it by permission—but by contract, that is, by a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job. A slave cannot. “Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column


“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law. “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness


What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code. “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness


The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.

The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system—as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.

All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights. “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness


What is the source of rights?

[T]he source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life. “This is John Galt Speaking,” For the New Intellectual


It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a “compromise” between two rights—but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society—but from your own inalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society—but is implicit in the definition of your own right.

Within the sphere of your own rights, your freedom is absolute. “Textbook of Americanism,” Ayn Rand Column


A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.

If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time. “Textbook of Americanism,” Ayn Rand Column


Can the rights of one individual conflict with those of another?

Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another.

For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. He has the right to choose his own happiness, but no right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do. “Textbook of Americanism,” Ayn Rand Column


The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness. “Textbook of Americanism,” Ayn Rand Column


How are rights violated?

A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated.

Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division—not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, nor to the arbitrary decree of society. No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man. “Textbook of Americanism,” Ayn Rand Column


Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement. “The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness


Does the principle of individual rights entail the right to a job, a home, or healthcare?

Jobs, food, clothing, recreation (!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values—goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”
A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort.

Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness—not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy.

The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.

Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.

There is no such thing as “a right to a job”—there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals. “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness

Compliments ARC http://principlesofafreesociety.com/

Noble Nobel????

I have tried to avoid entering this morass, but nonetheless the Nobel Committee has asked for my opinion on this issue. The Members have received numerous letters complaining of their recent choices: Peace, Economics, etc........

Let's take the easy one first: Economics. The award was won by two American Economists, Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson (a Wisconsin-bred boy). Without getting into specifics, Elinor was a fantastic choice dealing with the ability of free people to choose and chart their own paths without governmental intrusion. http://www.cogs.indiana.edu/people/homepages/ostrom.html
Oliver has been a noted scholar dealing with the idea of transaction cost economics and the governance of the firm. http://organizationsandmarkets.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/foss-and-klein-austrian-economics-and-the-transaction-cost-approach-to-the-firm.pdf
Both are free-market economists, and very friendly to the ideas and ideals of Austrian economics. Congrats to both....Well-done.

The Committee seemed confused....They chose two free thinkers and then???????????????

After doing research for literally decades, both Ostrom and Williamson clearly wasted their efforts and time. The Peace Prize went to someone with no records of achievement in any field, little research, not even good enough writing skills to win a Lit prize. Current resume includes some stints in public appointments, but no real efforts in previous or current employment. I am somewhat confused. But then I remembered previous American political winners: Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore. It seems as though these winners fall into a special category........socialist, anti-American supremacy, pro-European decadence. Great winners like Elie Wiesel, MLK, and Mother Theresa appear devalued by these.

The current winner had been President of the US for less than 11 days when the "application" was submitted to the Committee. Nothing of value had (nor so far has) been accomplished, not even a good speech (sans teleprompter). As a Senator, most votes were against his nation (or "mistakenly" pro-US). As a State politician his record is one of derogatory comments and actions towards success. Now as the BOSS, he has begun to punish those with good jobs and benefits (especially insurance). Taxation is his and his junta of Czars' manner to redistribute the rewards of those successes. I don't recall if Robin Hood received a Nobel anything. But efforts without a governmental approval must be wrong.

Modern society sends its monetary rewards to those who produce nothing. The Nobel Committee has continued the this sad trend. The Peace Prize DID come with a money award (lots of kroner).

Particpate or NO????

There comes a time when one needs to decide if the marginal benefits still are greater than the marginal costs. The benefits of writing to congressional representatives, voting, or even reading the press can seem to educators and talk-show hosts as, duh!, beneficial. While the costs: time, frustrations, and hand wringing are manageable. When one writes a pol and receives the ubiquitous form letter in return (Thank you for contacting me with your concerns...........), the angst is inevitable.

A well-formed, concise, and thoughtful comment, explanation, or grievance to leaders should in a perfect world, at least require a personal response. Understood that they may receive 100s, and with the morons in charge these days, 1000s of letters and e-mails and personal contact is difficult to manage; nonetheless, impersonal legislating is unspeakable.

When town hall meetings are called and many voters show, does not call for armed stormtroopers and labels of Mafia-inspired lobbyists. Yes people are angry. Washington has ignored the populace for so long, it doesn't quite understand that the citizens are sovereign. We, the People...

We, voters and non-voters (TAXPAYERS!) placed them there, pay their salaries, personal jets and Senator Ensign's rendezvous. We non-lobbying citizens have little say in today's world, especially when Obama and gang tend to "flag" critics and lunatics exercising 1st Amendment rights of speech, grievance, petition, etc...

Yet, what little say we have should be used, front the rooftops, blogs, letters to editors. I still have some hope that future generations may see the errors of our ways and revert to the Constitution, the rule of law, and freedom in the marketplace as not just academic terms (only in a few good classrooms!), but as the only means of civilized human existence.

Post-Racial America???

Seems like we have a racist in the "White" House! Also at Harvard. But not in Cambridge. What's up? Obviously when a back man is arrested, it is due to racial profiling. Or so "Professor" Gates thinks. First, does Harvard have any real professors? Second, is there such a thing as race? The 14th Amendment clearly outlawed it....that's right! Even though Sotomayer has said that maybe we need international law to "correct" the US Constitution, it is pretty obvious we have a document that some politicians I know have not read, let alone enforce or refer to.

According to http://www.blackamericaweb.com/ the Rev. Al Sharpton is vowing to attend Gates' arraignment."This arrest is indicative of at best police abuse of power or at worst the highest example of racial profiling I have seen," Sharpton said. "I have heard of driving while black and even shopping while black but now even going to your own home while black is a new low in police community affairs."

Now "Reverend" Sharpton, knowing that you do not live in a neighborhood similar to the people you claim to be helping emerge from the remnants of slavery (Nor for that matter the police officers who protect rich whining racists like other Harvard "professors."), were not the officers responding to a citizen complaint from a passerby or neighbor? Should not police actually investigate property rights violations? Was the white officer or the black officer racially profiling? Was the white officer in a master-slave relationship with his partner?(Oh, I'm sorry! According to Gates' work: his oppressed untermensch!) Seems that Gates and associates are racially profiling police white police officers. Both Officers, I salute your work, and apologize for the Obama who represents this nation for a job done well.

Mr. Obama has nothing to say about this issue, especially from the bully pulpit. This is a police matter, a local issue, clearly none of his business. He can as a friend of the suspect provide bail money, but stay out of it.

"Stupidity" I would say look at the pot, but that might be racial profiling.

Mr. President, I knew John Galt. You are not John Galt!

A

Now that the wimpy RNC Chair Steele has said that Obama is a socialist, Mr. Obama got indignant saying that the time for "politics was over." Lives depend on this PLAN. That is the connection that Mr. Steele didn't press hard enough. Steele is correct Obama, Pelosi, Baby Geithner are archetypal socialist a la Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin. They believe they have the answers, thus debate is really irrelevant and irreverent. One only needs debate if one respects discussion, one does not discuss when the "answers/solutions are obvious." Thus all who disagree are sent to camps, or dismissed as politicians.

But simple economics will show B.O. and henchmen they are 100% (Democratic math 102%) wrong. In Graph A above one can see that when Supply (S) equals Demand (D), there is both equilibrium quantities and equilibrium prices. Though these prices and quantities are never stable the concept is easily seen by any high school econ student. If there is a balance all willing to pay EQ get EQ, those who want their money more keep it, those doctors/hospitals, etc who prefer to not provide health care for that amount, go fishing. Everyone is happy!! Everybody has what is most valuable for them $ or RX.

B

Looking at graph B, one sees the so-called price ceiling above which prices can't go. Health care providers will not provide enough unless at gunpoint, or some other fascist coercion for the number who are now going to demand it. Providers will provide Q1 while demanders want Q2. How do they (the infamous THEY) expect to close that gap? Force or shoddy health care. Doctors who almost pass med school will be the extra providers, thus we will get enough....Enough is sometimes too much.

Sometimes a picture tells a good story......just act Rod Stewart.

Healthier Care???

We are soon to have a lesser America. The "politicians" in Washington D.C. (Da Capitol) are most likely to pass some form of a national socialist health care plan. The idea of national health care is merely an attempt by the few to rule the many. Currently we hear that "lives depend" on this being passed, "debate has ended," "This is a crisis." All of these are typical terms used by the State, President Obama, and little men of less character. How many that are voting for this are going to use this new health initiative?

Why is health care so expensive? 1) Medicare and Medicaid! Two programs run by government which illustrate the success of government. Many who had previously had community sponsored health care: doctors billing cheaper, or differently (barter) or even pro bono, no longer exists. Family members cared for one another. There were incentives to eat better, take care of our own sniffles, hang nails, etc. With Medicare and Medicaid, (along with other government "pro-family" agenda: abortion, welfare, poor schooling, and weak property rights protection) people are wasting abusing and devouring medical services and drugs like candy. (Be careful that's next of the planners list!)

2) When someone else pays, party. Why not have food insurance next? We go to the grocery store with a "Greens Card" fill the cart and have someone, or government pay. There are no real incentives, even with a deductible, to spend less. Health care is no longer a personal issue. Rather, "Who's your daddy?" When was the last time anyone asked the doctor what the costs were, prior to service???

3) What incentives are there for Government to provide the right health care. When I pay the bill, I purchase only what I feel is worth more to me than the money spent. Free markets provide only that which benefits them. They continue to innovate to lower costs, so they make more money, and provide cheaper and better goods and services. If they fail, they go bankrupt. If they provide well, they grow; but always under threat of something and someone better. We win as consumers. Medicine is NO DIFFERENT! Will government fail? YES! Will it pay the price? No we will, with higher prices for less quality. What incentives will doctors, who are now government employees, to work better than the DMV or Postal Services. Hospitals will become like Congress, mediocre. But taxes will continue to rise on the successful, while the rest of us sit around not working, not being taxed eating Black Market Twinkies* (That no taxing Black Market Twinkies sounds pretty cool, just don't cough and get caught!!)

4) Good health care will still exist, underground in back alleys, late at night for cash. I thought Obama has already been to kiss Putin's ass this should have given him some insight. Those who know someone will get good care, just illegally.

5) Thomas Sowell's article is brilliant. So most people probably haven't read it!

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332980889151894

Take Care, or they will.

The Summer Reading List

"Good" Morning to all. It has been awhile but things in this country have kept me at bay. For those of you whose summers are not yet regulated by national health care concerns, or "voluntary" work camps some reading may be in order. I recommend three, one a month, beer in hand (unless that is outlawed like cigarettes and trans fats) and pen and notebook ready. Remember that reading is a debate between reader and author. And as a gentleman the three books I am "assigning" you are by three lovely and brilliant women: Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane and Ayn Rand.

All have written more that are fantasttic, but with limited resources and the thought police approaching, three are essential. They are: Isabel Paterson's The God of the Machine, Rose Lane's The Discovery of Freedom, and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. John Chamberlain, a brilliant libertarian, stated:

These books made it plain that if life was to be something more than a naked scramble for government favors, a new attitude toward the producer must be created.

Each was an original thinker in her own right. But each also made a mark as a great popularizer of liberal ideas. A few beleaguered liberal economists had argued, with great force, that no planned economy could match the productive efficiency of a capitalist system. Yet these economic arguments, despite their technical force, were unable to match the power of the utopian socialist vision to capture the popular imagination. These three -- Lane and Paterson almost entirely bereft of formal education, Rand writing fiction in an adopted tongue -- did just that. The sweeping histories of Lane and Paterson chronicled humanity's ascent from barbarism to civilization in a way that uncovered the necessary links between civil liberties, stable property rights, and material progress. Even more successful was Rand's allegorical tale of a brash and brilliant young architect struggling to maintain the integrity of his work in a profession where his independence of mind is despised and resented. Above all a romantic epic, The Fountainhead also served up a blistering satire of the day's intellectual fads and hinted at the Objectivist philosophy of rational self-interest that she would develop in greater detail in her Atlas Shrugged.

The effect the trio had was no accident: they were frequent correspondents (and friends too, at times) who saw each other -- despite quarrels over fine points of ethics or conflicting religious views -- as comrades in arms engaged in a war of ideas.

The odds in that war looked less than encouraging, however: even the captains of industry who were emblems of the free enterprise system had, as often as not, succumbed to the prevailing orthodoxy. Undaunted, Rand wrote to Paterson in 1945: "You were right, we can do it without their help. We'll have to save capitalism from the capitalists."

Surveying the disheartening intellectual climate of the '40s, F. A. Hayek wrote:

We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage.... Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.

The battle, history has since shown, is not yet lost, and this is due in no small part to Rand, Paterson, and Lane's belief in the power of ideas. Unconstrained by conventional political categories, they savaged the collectivist economic nostrums of the left even while, in their lives and careers, they exploded the rigid gender roles seen as sacrosanct by so many on the right. In the process, they laid the foundations of the modern libertarian movement. Cato.org

But, remember the reading of great works will strecth the mind beyond its ability to go back....be careful.