Ayn Rand – The Nature Of Rights – Largemouth Bass Nation

Largemouth Bass Nation

We Are a Nation of Bass Fishermen!

Ayn Rand – The Nature Of Rights

The nature of rights defined.


30 thoughts on “Ayn Rand – The Nature Of Rights

  1. @justintempler I'm a huge Ayn Rand fan. I hope for her great ideas to be spread to all people. And one of the biggest obstacles is the obnoxiousness of a minority of Objectivists. If you are as rude to others as you are to me, then you are a net negative in our cause. I have another meaning for "ownership." But I have no desire to share it with you. Debating with you is no fun, and not in my own rational self interest. Bye.

  2. @justintempler Fixing someone's spelling is a sure way to endear yourself to others. 🙂
    I see nothing wrong with self-ownership. It seems a little self referential, but so is A=A, the identity postulate, and that is self evidently true. And self-ownership is not transferable. It is inalienable. If not self ownership, then what is the origin of rights?

  3. @freesk8 "Self ownership is a self-evident truth"

    Um no. Ownership implies something external. You can't separate yourself from yourself. You didn't preexist your body did you? Your body came first. Your body is a primary. Who owned it before you did? Your parents? God? So ownership can be transferred?

    Reductio ad absurdum.indeed! (<– note spelling, if you're going to use it, learn how to spell it please.)

  4. @mcoop221 I want to give you a well intended suggestion. As a Christian you recognise the Bible as an authority, however the people you are arguing against do not. So it is important for you to learn how to make Biblical arguments without using the Bible as an authority to support your argument. As someone alluded to in another comment, Natural Law was the traditional means of doing just that as Christians accepted Natural Law as created by God.

  5. @dlstb I have a lot of respect for the pro-life folks. I have never participated in an abortion. I have three kids of my own and very late in life. I guess my pro-choice stance comes from a distrust of government power and a knowledge of the inefficacy of prohibition. The drug war is worse than a failure, as with alcohol. The unintended consequences are worse than the intended. I fear the same for prohibiting abortion. This is a tough issue. Let's just both support Ron Paul! 🙂

  6. @freesk8 I don't understand how you can be for personal freedom and for abortion. The fetal stage is merely the first stage of human life. No different than other stages of human life during its' temporal life like childhood, puberty, or adulthood. A woman and a man (unless force or coercion is used which culminates in the act of rape) both agree (whether they think so or not) that they will accept the responsibility for their actions when they have sex. Not after, and no do overs.

  7. @TomYoRu

    You misunderstand.

    Earlier he used Ron Paul as an example against things I was saying, but I didn't say anything that Ron Paul is likely to disagree with.

    There was not a lot of talk on that subject, it was in maybe 3-6 comments between him and I.

    What you just said was expressed in my earlier comments, of which there is over 40 of mine to be read, if you wish.

    As I said before, if anyone responds to me, and seems to have not read all of what I wrote, I'll not be responding back.

  8. @freesk8 Since you don't know death you can't make a concrete statement about it. Nature has boundries, but it is always a matter of discussion where you choose to define them. Are the leaves on a tree so different from the oxygen it also produces? Nobody ELSE owns me, nobody else exists except as a center of action. I am resolute on individual free will and responsibility, but it really is only half the picture. Most people live in social relativity, worrying about the car they drive,

  9. @Mezocosm Some things ARE black and white. Like existence. You either are, or you are not. There is no middle ground. Many other things admit of shades of grey. But what we are talking about here is the ownership of the self. Can you really argue that someone ELSE owns your body? If so, who? If you will not argue this, then either you must claim that no one owns you, and so no authority can exist for action, or you must agree with my position, that you own you. Which is it?

  10. @freesk8 Black or white reasoning. The oldest symbol known to man is yin/yang. When you can understand that self and other go together like the positive and negative poles on a magnet you will stop leaning on script explanations and correct those who do.

  11. @TomYoRu I'm an atheist and a Ron Paul fan. We atheists have to know when to team up with theists. If you demand that a candidate agree with you 100% of the time, you will never find a candidate you can support. I disagree with Ron Paul on abortion, theism, and a little bit on immigration, but I agree with him on the big issues of the day: bringing the troops home, ending the war on drugs, reducing govt spending and debt, defending Const. rights and ltd. govt. Yay, Ron Paul!

  12. @Mezocosm You refer to "other people." If there really ARE other people, then there must be a self. "Proving infinite process" has no coherent meaning. I'm not talking about my idea of who I am, I'm talking about my SELF and your SELF. Either we exist, or we do not. The culture has nothing to do with this central question, since we would either exist or not if we were alone on a desert island. You seem not to be aware of any borders or coherent definitions.

  13. @fzqlcs hehe. Thx for the response. If you want real capitalism remove copywrite laws, lobbying, and all govt. assistance to business. The military and police should only serve the people, and while i understand republicanism, I support a wild free open internet with direct democracy. Media controls are propaganda, plain and simple.

  14. @Mezocosm Capitalism is VOLUNTARY exchange. That is a far cry from stealing. Glad her ideas are only half right in your eyes. Otherwise, I would question whether SHE understood capitalism.

  15. @freesk8 Western selfhood is an delusion. It is the mental projection of how you see your image in relation other people. Biology proves infinite process with the "external environment" Your idea of who you are contains no information of how you digest your food or work your eyes. It is cultural, every living thing with consciousness is a center…you just need to expand your borders and definitions

  16. Ayn Rand was bitter her whole life because her family was one of the elites that the communists redistributed the wealth from, then she read alot of nietzsche and this is where she justified her resentment. I have read lots of Rand, great writer of fiction, her ideas are only half right and utopianist capitalism celebrating greed like it wasn't stealing.

  17. The source of rights is self ownership. Self ownership is a self-evident truth. If you attempt to assume the opposite, that some other entity owns the self, you arrive at absurdity. Govt? God? Humanity? All absurd. Reducto ad absurdem.

  18. @dimeuno You won't find much support here, dude. Most of us are atheists, Dr.Paul is in the minority. Young, atheist, libertarians are the future and this gives me a lot of hope.

  19. He must think Ron Paul is pretty dumb.

    Me and Ron Paul have a very similar set of ideologies, as expressed in my many comments below.

    He may not agree with every single point, but on most of the ones that matter, he'd agree with me, and disagree with dubscheckem1.

    So ya, I've pretty much pwned you as hard as one can be pwned.

    Congratulations, you've failed as epically as has ever been accomplished.

    We should contact the Guinness World Record offices, and report this miraculous event, aye?

  20. @dimeuno
    And finally, like all superstitious people, he tries to claim victory by saying that I couldn't falsify his unfalsifyable hypothesis (after having refuted his other claims and having already tried playing the victim). To any intelligent person you have clearly lost this argument, my friend.

  21. @dimeuno

    As I said, I'll not honor you with another response, this is directed at everyone who may read this.

    Until he leaves a comment that indicates he understands what has been said, he's lost, and I've won, and I'll never again respond to him, assuming it's a him and not a her, until they prove to me from their comment that they leave me that they now understand.

    It's pointless, they seem too far gone to understand and I'm wasting too much valuable time on them.

    I hope they wake up soon.

  22. @asdflive I was stating the rights she believed in are self evident. I can state that for myself and indeed they were self evident to HER as stated in the link u sent me. She simply stated she came to realize that individual rights were not in fact self evident to the majority of people. Since I was talking about HER convictions and beliefs in those principles, the Rights being self evident to HER and also to Me is indeed true and sufficient for my point.

  23. @dimeuno You're only digging your hole deeper, fool. You've provided nothing that hasn't been refuted or cannot be proved, NOTHING.

    Your position is weak and you know it, that's why you're getting so emotional. Perhaps you should rethink your position and come back when you can actually make a coherent argument which isn't based solely on faith.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: