Archive for the 'Rights' Category

Objectivism vs. Libertarianism & More (Show 063)

For Show 063, Objectivists Mosley and Arthur have a discussion with a Libertarian caller, Charles, about how Objectivism significantly differs with Libertarianism.

It begins as Arthur presents his basic criticisms of Libertarianism from an Objectivist point of view. Two of his mains points were that a) Libertarians generally hold that an underlying philosophy is unnecessary, implicitly if not explicitly, and b) because of this, they do not grasp the concept of individual rights, and therefore have no means by which to determine that which constitutes force, something they hold to be axiomatically bad (which it is not). These deficiencies are very destructive in that they lead to the improper defense and misrepresentation of capitalism.

The discussion then briefly moves on to the topic of cultural change. Mosley and Arthur talk about how to bring about capitalism, which is by changing the dominant ideas of our culture. The continued dominance of altruistic ideas is discussed here as well.

Then the conversation goes back to politics, which lasted for the remainder of a show. It was a very interesting conversation on the initiation force, the enforcement of contracts, and the nature of government. This was an excellent show and I highly recommend that you check it out.

The Basis for Individual Rights (Emphasis on Children’s Rights) (Show 058)

Show 058 is a follow-up to last week’s show on children’s rights. This time around Arthur gives us his two cents on the topic. He starts the discussion by going to the heart of the issue, the basis of rights, and identifying the facts of reality that give rise to them. In order to prevent any rationalistic view of rights (the idea that rights exist as some kind of other-worldly entity/Platonic form), he examines and makes the context clear.

After a thorough and thought-provoking analysis, Arthur considers how children rights differ from those of adults. He discusses how children are dependent on their parents to survive since their rational faculty is not fully developed, and what implications this has for rights. Acknowledging that the fine details are not for philosophy to answer (but rather the philosophy of law), he gave his general views as to what rights children have and how the law should protect them.

This was an excellent and entertaining show, so I hope you check it out. If you have any comments, feel free to post here or join us next week on TalkShoe.

Also, I just wanted to note that there is now a talkObjectivism facebook group. If you like the show, join up!

Children’s Rights (Show 057)

Spinning off from a comment about “the common good,” Mosley discusses children’s rights and to what extent they have them. He walks through various questions about the topic such as:

  • What does a parent owe his or her child?
  • Does a child have the right run his or her own life contrary to parents’ wishes?
  • At what point does a child become an adult?
  • Does a child have the right to an education?
  • What constitutes neglect (by a parent)?

Check out the show for Mosley’s views and feel free to leave a comment or join the next show if you have some views that you’d like to share!

Shows 053 & 054

Hello all, sorry for the delay in show notes. I was away for Spring Break this past week, but I’m back and so are the notes.

The Open Mind vs. The Active Mind (Show 053)
Mosley and Arthur discuss the term the expression “having an open mind” and what it actually means. They argue that having an “open mind” is not being open to reason, but disregarding it. It consists of granting equal plausibility to any claim, regardless of any knowledge that one may have that contradicts it. And so, they conclude, one should not have an “open mind” but rather an active mind. Their view corresponds with Ayn Rand’s position.

Corporate Responsibility/States’ Rights (Show 054)
Show 054 consisted of an excellent discussion of two topics suggested by a listener. The first topic dealt with how responsibility should fall on, and how justice should be served amongst, a corporation. The second topic dealt with states’ rights. I won’t try to rehash the arguments here. It was a great show and I highly recommend it.

The Coming Election (Show 049)

Show 049 was an excellent discussion about the coming U.S. presidential election. Arthur explained his views starting with this question: Which party will do the least damage to Objectivist ideals? (I will try to summarize what he said, but please listen to the show for his own words.)

The Republicans essentially stand for religion. They consistently try to mix faith with government, of which even small amounts can be disastrous, and will lead to a theocracy. Furthermore, their religious altruistic beliefs conflict with the self-interest morality necessitated by capitalism, which they claim to defend. Because of this, they’re misrepresenting capitalism, making it disreputable and therefore harder to realize.

The Democrats stand for a disintegrated attempt at socialism (or pieces of it). But since the fall of the Soviet Union, communism and socialism are no longer the threat they once were. It has been demonstrated that such systems are horrendous. Moreover, since the Democrats’ views are disintegrated, they can not achieve long term success. So, in order to give Objectivism time, it makes the most sense to throw out the bigger threat, the Religious Right, and vote for the Democrats.

Many Objectivists will bring up a third option. What about the Libertarians? The Libertarians say they stand for liberty, but they have an anti-philosophical approach. Their guiding “principle” is the non-initiation of force, but without a proper underlying philosophy, no one can say what initiating force consists of. Politics is a derivative of ethics and must be treated as such. Otherwise, capitalism will continue to be misrepresented, which is immensely destructive. (For those interested, there is also a discussion of Ron Paul on the show.)

It was a great show and I highly recommend you listen to it. You may want to read Diana Hsieh’s post on the election as well.

Listen to this show and more at Talkshoe.


Powered by TalkShoe

The Organ Trade (Show 043)

For this show, Mosley and Arthur have a discussion based on the ARI op-ed, To Save Lives, Legalize Trade in Organs. It is only a paragraph long, so I have posted it below.

“Thousands of individuals waiting for transplants have died through the years because the law forbids the sale of human organs. To significantly increase the availability of organs, this murderous law must be scrapped and the trade in organs decriminalised. If the law acknowledges our right to give away an organ, it should also acknowledge our right to sell an organ. And if the law recognises our right to pay for a life-saving medical treatment, it should also recognise our right to pay for a life-saving organ for transplant. Individuals able to pay for organs would benefit at no one’s expense but their own. Those unable to pay would still be able to rely on charity.”

The right to life means both the right to the mind and body, organs and all. People are dying every day from not having the healthy organs that they need. Creating an incentive, by allowing trade, can save these lives. So what is holding us back? Listen to the show for more details about how this could work.

Universal Health-Care (Show 042)

The topic of show 042 was universal health-care. Mosley discusses how government health-care is wrong and the only moral health-care system is that which can be provided by the free-market. There was also a caller from Canada, where universal health-care is in effect, who is in favor of the system. It makes for an interesting discussion.

Here is the link to the essay that was mentioned on the show. And, coincidentally, Yaron Brook, the President of the Ayn Rand Institute, wrote an excellent essay about health-care just yesterday.

“You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services–no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a “right” to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.”

What do you think? Feel free to comment.

Collectivism (Show 039)

The topic of this show is collectivism and some of its manifestations, such as racism. After a shout-out to the business owners of Pittsburgh, Mosley read some quotes from the Ayn Rand Lexicon on racism and collective rights, including the following, and then throughly discussed them.

“Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.”

“A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race—and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin.”

“A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.”

In the second half of the show, there was a caller as well. So check it out!

Powered by TalkShoe

US Federal Law: Let in the dogs, or else!

I love dogs, as many do, but they have their place, and it’s not at the dinner table. According to this article, however, it is in violation of the federal law for a disabled individual accompanied by a guide-dog to be refused service at restaurants.

Laws such as these can be very harmful to businesses. Restaurants can lose many customers in order to accommodate just one of these individuals. There are many people who are allergic to animals and some who just don’t want animals around while they’re eating.

The main issue here, however, is individual rights. It’s unfortunate if someone is disabled, but what gives them the right to impose their problems on others? Nothing. Just like anyone else, it is their responsibility to deal with their own problems. Otherwise, they can rely on the charity of others.

Once again, the government is going beyond its sole purpose of protecting rights and, instead, violating them.

The Writers’ Strike (Show 038)

Mosley and Arthur discuss the writers’ strike that has been making the headlines. Though, rather than focusing on the details of this strike in particular, the discussion mainly covered the underlying principles. Here are just a few that were mentioned:

  • Employment isn’t a war of employers vs. employees, masters vs. slaves. Employers and employees share a common goal — to be productive — and should collaborate if they intend to be successful.
  • Contracts are mutual agreements. When you choose a job voluntarily and sign the contract, you are morally obligated to abide by it. If you don’t like the terms, then don’t take the job! But if you change your mind and demand something outside of your contract, you have no right to break it and go on strike.
  • Think you’re worth more than you’re paid? Talk about it. Present evidence to your boss and discuss it. If that doesn’t work, you can threaten to take your work elsewhere. And if no one will pay you that much, you may want to reevaluate your worth.
  • The pie just got a whole lot bigger and I want my slice. If a company endures an increase in success, don’t think that means you are entitled to a larger wage because of it. If you feel you deserve it, talk to your boss, but that money is not yours yet. It may even be going back into the company so that it can become even more successful and perhaps eventually give you those benefits you’ve been after.

Listen to the show to hear more!

Please send us any comments you may have, including possible show topics. And of course, listen to the show every Sunday at 8pm!

Powered by TalkShoe