How Not to Defend Individual Rights

I got my hopes up with this one. In Tibor Machan's column in the Yuma Sun, Foundation of rights continues to be questioned, he identifies a key problem. He covers some of the arguments on both sides of the philosophical debate about the metaphysical vs. social grounding of rights, and criticizes the common perception that "the idea of rights is no longer based on human nature but on governmental power."

But there are significant problems with his column, mostly in the realm of what he doesn't say. Machan gets agonizingly close to doing it right and he does have some good things to say, so I have a hard time fully criticizing him for it... but though he hints at the problems associated with denying the metaphysical foundation of individual rights, he does a poor job of clearly putting forth the answer I know he knows.

On top of that, he never enumerates the key individual rights to life, liberty, and property, even though he mentions Locke. He never even calls them individual rights, but shies away from such straightforward language in favor of the oddly redundant, "individual (human) rights."

And his bit at the end about Chinese dissidents having a better grasp on the issue than Americans is certainly pithy, but misguided.

And, ironically, it is now in countries across the globe that have had and still have governments that violate rights all over the place that the American Founders' and John Locke's views are dominant. For example, the Chinese Charter 08 group, under the leadership of Liu Xiaoba and 302 dissidents, has written as follows:

"Human rights are not bestowed by a state. Every person is born with inherent rights to dignity and freedom. The government exists for the protection of the human rights of its citizens. The exercise of state power must be authorized by the people. The succession of political disasters in China's recent history is a direct consequence of the ruling regime's disregard for human rights." [bold added]

Where are these ideas dominant? I admit that my knowledge of the Chinese dissident intelligentsia is less than it could be, but I'd be shocked if "life, liberty, and property," was a more widespread rallying cry in China than it is here in the US. Granted, it is vital that it gains greater acceptance here, and on the fundamental level which the study of Ayn Rand's ideas can give, but asserting that such ideas are dominant in China seems to need much more evidence behind it than Machan provides.

Also concerning is that the dissidents parrot the vague, undefinable language of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. More power to them as they fight a tyrannical regime, but they shouldn't use the UN as a source for political philosophy and arguments for individual rights and liberty. And I dare anyone to define "dignity" in this context as a "human right." Even Kantian philosophers have identified this problem.

As I have said before, "human rights" is an anti-concept that serves to demean and destroy the valid concept of individual rights, and "dignity" is purposefully vague so as to admit any definition -- especially those that assert "positive rights."

I'm surprised and disappointed at what Machan omitted -- a more thorough description of what individual rights are, where they come from, and why they're so crucial in a political context, as well as a specific reference to Ayn Rand and her key ideas which would have made all his points for him -- so much so that it seems to be an elephant in the room. Why dance around the points that would make his argument, and the thinkers to whom those ideas should be attributed? Assuming he was writing for a lay audience, such clarity would have helped to get his ideas across much more effectively.

It is always good to see a defense of individual rights because it's crucial to promote such ideas , but this particular op-ed was, on the whole, a missed opportunity.

Apologizer-in-Chief

Nile Gardner explains why President Obama got such a nice reception at the UN:

It is not hard to see why a standing ovation awaits the president at Turtle Bay. Obama’s popularity at the UN boils down essentially to his willingness to downplay American global power. He is the first American president who has made an art form out of apologizing for the United States, which he has done on numerous occasions on foreign soil, from Strasbourg to Cairo.

The president scores highly at the UN for refusing to project American values and military might on the world stage... His appeasement of Iran, his bullying of Israel, his surrender to Moscow, his call for a nuclear free world, his siding with Marxists in Honduras, his talk of a climate change deal, have all won him plaudits in the large number of UN member states where US foreign policy has traditionally been viewed with contempt.

Simply put, Barack Obama is loved at the UN because he largely fails to advance real American leadership. This is a dangerous strategy of decline that will weaken US power and make her far more vulnerable to attack. [bold added]

The nations of the world recognize that Obama is one of them. Not only does he agree that America should feel guilty for its successes, but it should actively work to level the playing field by sacrificing itself. Publicly, other nations welcome Obama's cosmopolitan attitude, but privately they know they can exploit his weaknesses.

It was clear that, for all of his incredible faults, George Bush at least had contempt for the UN. He saw it as an anti-American institution, at fundamental odds with our country's national self-interest. Of course he also accepted the altruist/collectivist ethics promoted by that institution, so his contempt looked more reactionary and petulant than principled. Still, he saw it for what it was.

Obama sees it for what it is, too. And he likes it. He pleads for acceptance... really, we're not that bad! I promise! And he's ready to put our money where his mouth is.

Billy Beck sees this too, and asks a more fundamental and very important question:

How much longer will Americans put up with the United Nations?

It's really that simple, ladies and gentlemen. This was an abomination from the very beginning, and will now heartily endorse the contempt of a United States president for the people of his country.

I am ordinarily very careful about any suggestions of violence, but this is clear to me: the United Nations complex at Turtle Bay must be emptied, gutted, and razed to the ground. Nobody in the world would ever do it but Americans, and the world would be so astonished that it could all be gone before everyone else had one word to say to it. [bold added]

I don't have an answer to his question, but I know that the only way an American rejection of the UN would be possible is if they reject the altruistic foundation upon which it was built. And that's a much bigger, deeper fight.

Oh, and his final suggestion made me think of Cortlandt Homes.

Deval Patrick's Ideas: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America

The Wall St. Journal gave a national platform to the governor of Massachusetts to shill his bad ideas in support of Obama's socialized medicine. The only grain of truth I found was in the first paragraph:

Our country now faces the best opportunity in decades to provide quality health care for all Americans while containing spiraling costs. My state, Massachusetts, can serve as a model for national reform. [bold added]

It is certainly true that Mass. can serve as a model, but precisely in the opposite way that Patrick intends. The healthcare debacle in Massachusetts is a perfect model for why a "mandatory insurance" plan will fail in particular, and more generally, why any government meddling in healthcare is a violation of individual rights and will only grow like a cancer if implemented.

Looking briefly to Patrick's article itself, he starts with an emotionalist argument (talking about hurting families), an altruistic argument ("everyone has a stake in health-care reform"), and then patronizingly says that we shouldn't be afraid.

From then on, he dances around, claiming that things are rosy without any facts to back it up, and comes off as a woefully naive (or insidiously manipulative) cheeleader, which is exactly what he is. The quality of his op-ed is so poor, in fact, that I'm surprised it passed the WSJ's standards. It makes me wonder if they allowed it just as an example of the vacuous nature of the arguments for socialized medicine.

Rather than waste too much time reading Patrick's pablum, instead I recommend that you read (or re-read) Dr. Paul Hsieh's excellent autopsy of Massachusetts' mandatory insurance debacle at The Objective Standard. The entire article is available for free.

Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America

by Dr. Paul Hsieh
The Objective Standard -- Fall 2008

Objectivist Roundup #113

Welcome to the September 10, 2009 edition of the Objectivist Roundup, your weekly dose of intellectual fuel and ammunition.

This roundup features posts by blog authors who are students and advocates of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. She called it a "philosophy for living on earth" and further described it:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

"About the Author," Atlas Shrugged, Appendix.

Considering the events of the day you may notice that most of the posts below deal with politics. But note that they all share a common philosophical grounding in Objectivism, and consistently promote individual rights and the socio-economic system of laissez-faire capitalism to protect those rights. Such is the value of this roundup--weekly commentary on crucial issues from a rational, individual rights perspective.

And with that, I am pleased to present Objectivist Roundup #113!

---

1. John Drake presents Dewey's wrong approach to education posted at Try Reason!, saying, "While in general, I am not a big fan of analyzing quotations out of context, one quote of Dewey's, whose educational philosophy I am familiar with, is packed full of philosophic assumptions. I look at some of flawed ideas supporting his statement."


2. Rob Abiera presents What determines the size of government? posted at The Morality War, saying, "My comments regarding an editorial in my local paper which asserts that Americans are ready to debate the size of government."


3. Brian Phillips presents Plato's War on Houston: From Zoning to "SmartCode", Part 1 posted at Houston Property Rights, saying, "The Greek philosopher Plato died more than 2,300 years ago, yet he is waging war on Houston today. His ideas live on, made manifest in the myriad proposals to shape the city through government regulation and controls."


4. Miranda Barzey presents Dealing with Emotions posted at Ramen & Rand, saying, "The cure for overwhelming emotion? Reason."


5. Paul McKeever presents McKeever on McParland on Conservatives on Obama posted at Paul McKeever, saying, "if nothing else, perhaps you'll get a giggle out of the Jesus Obama image."


6. Stephen Bourque presents The Treachery of Unintegrated Facts posted at One Reality, saying, "The young professional today righteously places a “Question Authority” bumper sticker next to the “Obama/Biden” label on the trunk of his hybrid car, blissfully unaware that he accepts every government directive and politically-correct norm without question."


7. Trey Givens presents Caveman-Friendly Shepherd's Pie posted at Trey Givens, saying, "Autumn is coming to NYC and being tired of lighter fare, I decided it's time to find some comfort food for the winter. With that in mind, I made over a recipe for Shepherd's Pie to make it caveman friendly. It was delicious, cheap, and easy. Enjoy!"


8. Dan Edge presents Adventures in Activism: A True Story of Protest, Arrest, and Release posted at The Edge of Reason, saying, "From the introduction:
   
   "The following is a chronicle of the events preceding, during, and after the downtown protest I organized against the “emergency” curfew ordinance – events which led to my arrest for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor.""
   
   I spent 17 hours in a detainment cell drunk tank to make this article happen, so read it or I'll turn all your minors into delinquent miners. It's long (8 pages, single-spaced), so check this out when you have time and buckle up!"


9. Paul Hsieh presents Medical Alert: Women and Thigh Fractures posted at GeekPress, saying, "This is a change of pace from my usual blogging. Recent research shows that women taking certain commonly-prescribed medications for osteoporosis are apparently at increased risk for developing unusual femur (thigh bone) fractures. Click through for more information."


10. Diana Hsieh presents Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups posted at NoodleFood, saying, "Colorado's Front Range Objectivism is starting up Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups. Come see what they're all about!"


11. Jasmine presents I Protest posted at Rational Education, saying, "My protest is quite simply, because I am quite tired and fed up of making myself and my kids the guinea pigs of whatever new experiments the public schools can come up with, and force it on me. The latest President speech debate simply helped my resolve to speak out, that is all."


12. Kelly Elmore presents Rasselas and Happiness posted at Reepicheep's Coracle, saying, "This post is about Samuel Johnson's novel The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abyssinia, Dr. Johnson's ideas about happiness (as expressed in this novel), and what that means to Objectivists."


13. Rational Jenn presents Mythbusting: Ayn Rand, Mommies, and Children posted at Rational Jenn, saying, "I'm usually pretty amazed by those who attack Ayn Rand personally for somehow being against the Mommy profession and children in general. So I pulled together some of her own words that contradict that sentiment."


14. Stella presents Pharmacists and their consciences posted at ReasonPharm, saying, "Thoughts on a question answered in Dr. Peikoff's most recent Podcast."


15. Edward Cline presents Barack Obama: Seducer of the Young posted at The Rule of Reason, saying, "On September 8th, President Barack Obama addressed the nation's school children (from kindergarten up through high school), and, under the subterfuge of encouraging them study hard and become "the best they can be," slipped in the message that service to the country and sacrifice to others should be their primary motives."


16. Roderick Fitts presents Inductive Quest: The Justification for Induction--Or Lack of It posted at Inductive Quest, saying, "a essay which discusses my reasons for thinking that induction doesn't have a justification, and doesn't need one. Hopefully, it shows an important point about the notion of justification."


17. Gus Van Horn presents Well. He is from Hawaii... posted at Gus Van Horn, saying, "Barack Obama's Justice Department will be about as effective fighting against discriminatory law as the Republicans were in dismantling the welfare state."


18. Doug Reich presents Literally Experiencing the Broken Window Fallacy posted at The Rational Capitalist, saying, "Actually experiencing a broken window led me to the usual conclusion."


19. C. August presents Van Jones: Plucking the Leaves but Leaving the Roots posted at Titanic Deck Chairs, saying, "One czar is gone, but because the conservatives aren't challenging the roots of the problem with principled, individual rights positions, more weeds will keep sprouting up."


20. Doug Reich presents Inside a Bubble posted at The Rational Capitalist, saying, "Today's Chinese-US economic relationship is remarkably similar to the US-British relationship of the 1920's which gave rise to the Great Depression."
    
    
    

---

That concludes Objectivist Roundup #113. Next week's host is Stella at ReasonPharm. Submit your blog article to the Objectivist Roundup using our carnival submission form.

Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags: Objectivist Roundup, blog carnival.

Van Jones: Plucking the Leaves but Leaving the Roots

I recall reading well over a year go about a guy from California who was spearheading the "Green Collar Economy." It was a popular new catchphrase and I believe I heard about it first either on NPR or in the Boston Globe. I went to the website and read about someone named Van Jones who was organizing and trying to spread his terrible environmentalist and statist views on a national scale, with a book and a bunch of slick marketing and social media activities. Still, he was local from way across on the Left Coast, and I put it out of my mind.

Then Obama won. Eventually, I heard of a new "Green Jobs Czar" named... Van Jones. Yup, same guy. On top of all the other horrendous appointments he was making, it was hard to say he was any worse than the likes of Cass Sunstein or tax cheat Tim Geithner. Then recently, conservative commentators started digging into Jones' background, he became a liability, and over the weekend he resigned. (Expect a cacophony of claims that the Right was motivated by racism -- I'm betting on a Paul Krugman piece trumpeting that angle in the Times in the next day or two.)

Of course his resignation won't make a bit of difference. In fact, it may be a bad thing, because all that will happen is that Obama will search out a non-controversial person to hide in the background while he doles out billions of dollars of redistributed wealth, stolen from productive enterprises and tossed down the Green Hole of "sustainable" industry.

The Wall St. Journal appears to be cautioning Obama from its editorial page, but all it's doing is asking him to govern from the middle:

No President is responsible for all of the views of his appointees, but the rise and fall of Mr. Jones is one more warning that Mr. Obama can't succeed on his current course of governing from the left. He is running into political trouble not because his own message is unclear, or because his opposition is better organized. Mr. Obama is falling in the polls because last year he didn't tell the American people that the "change" they were asked to believe in included trillions of dollars in new spending, deferring to the most liberal Members of Congress, a government takeover of health care, and appointees with the views of Van Jones. [bold added]

The only item in that list that a Republican administration wouldn't be guilty of is appointing someone like Van Jones (though they'd likely go in the opposite direction and appoint a Christian Fundamentalist).

Still, the longer the radical leftists are sitting in positions of power in Washington, and the longer their explicit and implicit political philosophies are exposed to the harsh sunlight, it is more likely that the American people will start to wonder if there is a real, philosophical antidote more substantial than Reagan-era conservatism. They may, just may, start thinking about individual rights and questioning why both parties are so hellbent on violating them.

It's good to see someone like Jones get run out of town, but until the opposition starts fighting for individual rights and fully laissez-faire capitalism instead of complaining that one of Obama's czars said "Republicans are a-holes," there will be no alteration in the course of the country as it plunges into socialism. Because environmentalist and statist policies were not attacked at their rights-violating roots, one green czarist weed was pulled and we can expect another, stronger, harder-to-pull weed to spring up in its place.

First Day of School

Wednesday was the first day of public school for my 5 1/2 year old daughter. Her mother and I drove her to the little elementary school just 3/4 mi. from our house, and walked into the kindergarten class with her. She sat at the desk with her name on it, and while she looked a bit nervous, she quickly warmed up. There were at least four other kids in the class she knew, either from our neighborhood or from dance school or what have you. Total number of kids in her class: 14.

Our district seems to be one of the few left that still have half-day kindergarten, and I'm glad for that. It leaves plenty of time for her to tackle her real job of playing, getting dirty, scraping her knees, and all of those other crucial things.

We're also fortunate to live in this particular part of our town, near this particular elementary school. It may be rather old, but what it lacks in space-age furnishings and smoothie bars and a 3-D planetarium, it makes up for in being a traditional, tight-knit, neighborhood school. Not only does A. know many kids in her class, she knows kids in all other grades at the school because of our particular neighborhood. All the moms in the area know her too, and apparently everyone is discussing how all the neighborhood kids can walk home together, how moms can take shifts in picking everyone up, etc. Kids in our close-knit neighborhood go out to play with no direct parental supervision and everyone is fine with that. All the parents in the area keep an ear and occasional eye on what's going on and everyone looks out for the kids. In this day and age of helicopter parenting, it's an ideal place to give our kids more of a free-range upbringing like what we had growing up, while having some peace of mind too. [In the interest of full disclosure, at their age, we don't yet let our kids run around without us there. 5 and 3 is just too young to go up the street and play with the big kids. But in a couple of years...]

While that was somewhat off-topic concerning the first day of school, it provides some context for what our situation is like. If we're stuck sending our children to public school -- neither private nor home school are possible for us -- it's not a bad place to be. Of course, my biggest concern is the actual teaching that goes on, and I don't have enough information to make a judgment about that yet. On that Wednesday, one teacher took the kids outside to play while the parents sat in little chairs and listened to the teacher discuss what the kids would be learning, how parent-teacher communication would work, and all the little details that go into making a school year. I have since looked up the math and reading programs they teach from, and they generally look OK ("Everyday Math" and "Balanced Literacy" -- if anyone knows anything specific, good or bad, let me know). They'll have science and gym as well, but no recess. Considering their day is only 2.5 hrs, that makes sense to me.

I'm not sure what else to say about it. Was I floored by how amazing the school was? No. But I think it will be fine, and we're certainly going to be supplementing her education at home -- case in point, we need to figure out how to integrate the half-hour American History lectures by Scott Powell into our daily routine. I'm curious how she'll react to them.

Perhaps a good indicator of how things have gone so far was that on Thursday, she was frustrated that she wouldn't have school until the afternoon (after winter break, she'll switch to mornings). And she's annoyed that she has Monday off. I very much hope that school lives up to her expectations and that it can keep up with her, so that she'll always have this optimism and eagerness about it. And we'll be vigilant in our observations, and if that light seems to be dimming -- if the school teaches to the lowest common denominator and starts boring the hell out of her -- we'll quickly take measures to rectify it. But for now, things look good.

I wasn't emotional about this milestone except for feeling pride in who she is, and curiosity about how she'll approach the coming challenges. After the teacher finished our "orientation" and the kids came back in, we left together and A. asked if we could go to lunch, just the three of us. We went to a small Italian place with a deck that looks out over a lake, and A. ordered the broccoli and chicken pasta in a cream sauce. She was surprised at the salad that came with her order (not a normal thing for kid's meals) but dug into it. As we sat there talking about school supplies and what her impressions of the kids, school, and teacher were, I was struck at how grown up she suddenly was.

My strongest impression from her first day was that I was very proud of how my little girl handled it all. She's smart, strong-minded, confident, curious, friendly, and outgoing. She's also gorgeous and a head taller than anyone else in the class. She's a force to be reckoned with, and I hope the world is ready for her. If it isn't, I don't think she'll notice.

Then of course when I got home after work, it was all tickling and giggling and watching silly cartoons before bed, and she was 5 again. What a fun, funny age.

The Old Git Died While I Was Out

I had plans to write during my vacation, but the pull of perfect weather, sandy beaches, the pool, and fun with family and friends was too much to resist. And while I was out of blogging action, that old bastard Ted Kennedy up and died. All I could muster in response was "well, it's about goddamned time!" I may have danced a small jig, too.

I did get to answer a million questions from my daughter about who Teddy was, "why are all those people dressed in black?", "did you like him, dad?", etc. For some reason, others in our beach house felt compelled to watch the coverage. And for the record, my answer to whether I liked him or not was, "I didn't know him personally, but I strongly disagreed with most everything he ever said or did." It's a similar answer I give when she asks whether I like the president or not; it's not about personality or likability, it's about ideas. That's as far as I'm willing to go with a 5-yr-old right now.

One comment I heard from others at the house was that even if they didn't agree with Kennedy, he was a good man, and acted in a principled fashion on his beliefs. My assertion that he was an unprincipled power luster was rejected as absurd. "He's already got all the power he could ever use!" was the argument against mine. To which I say: bullshit. An evil scumbag like that is motivated primarily by his thirst for power over others, and in Kennedy's case, by systematically attacking individual rights in every way he could. Just becoming a senior senator is not enough for someone like that, and they aren't happy unless they are doing something like, say, working on a bill like Obamacare which would enact perhaps the largest violation of individual rights in our nation's history. If Teddy really thought he was "doing the right thing" based upon his altruist morality -- an assertion I highly doubt, as he was much too jaded, cynical, and slippery to be a wide-eyed idealist -- then it is merely his professed morality which is evil, as well as all of the actions he took. This doesn't leave much room for him being good, in any way, shape, or form. In other words, a person can be judged to be a bad person even if he thought his "heart" was in the right place. Good intentions don't excuse bad actions or bad philosophy.

I was very happy to see Doug at The Rational Capitalist take aim at Kennedy and his legacy. In his post, "In Memoriam - an Anti-American," Doug takes both Kennedy and the media to task:

Ted Kennedy stood for everything that America is not - which is precisely why he is being posthumously lionized by the liberal media....

Kennedy's body of "work" in the Senate is a paean to the liberal values of statist control and wealth redistribution excepting, of course, his own. Apparently, he considered his "lifework" to be his efforts on behalf of socialized medicine, and, fittingly, Obama's statist monstrosity has now been renamed in his honor.

Indeed, Kennedy's second-handed prestige, derived from an aristocratic life of pull peddling and power lust, represents everything America is not.

Finally, I can't resist quoting Billy Beck on Kennedy, in an open letter to Mary Jo Kopechne:

Your killer's brain finally rotted out, today. It's something of a fitting end, given how the evil toad lived anti-conceptually all his rotten life.

The horrible thing is gone now. I hope it died choking like Josef Stalin.

To those who think this is too harsh, or unbecoming of the debate, keep in mind what Kennedy stood for and that his every official action was to increase both his and the government's power over your life. The man worked tirelessly to take your freedom. Should one mince words when describing him?

Driving into work this morning, I saw a Boston city bus with a special tribute on its scrolling sign. In between the standard items stating the route number and end stations of the bus, it said "Thank you Senator Kennedy!" I looked at other buses, and this message was the personal initiative of one little fool of a bus driver. Thank you, Mr. Bus Driver, for advertising your idiocy to the world.

Now that I'm back in Massachusetts, I fear that I'll be hearing about the old bastard for much longer than the rest of you, especially as all the scheming parasites angle for his job. The only possible bright side in this is that it's hard to imagine how someone worse than Teddy could be elected. But if any state could do it, it would be this one.

Ted Kennedy: Good riddance to bad rubbish.