Rand, Rothbard, and Rights Reconsidered

I'm sorry, but in spite of this woman being obviously very smart and studious, the problems I have with her premises are legion.

First of all, this is the first time I have heard of the "right to retaliation." (Forgive me, but I am, after all, a confirmed doofus.) Having explained it, I understand where she's coming from, but it once again brings up the issue of "rights," which, to me, are nothing more than individual observations of natural phenomena. They are logical (or somewhat logical) conclusions, but not necessary in my view. But the problems only worsen from here, and it's probably a result of my disagreement with the above premise.

"Rand’s justification for this is that if private individuals took justice into their own hands, this would lead to thuggery and mob rule (1964c, 108–109)." How so? We have mob rule right now. If the government imploded tomorrow, the majority (or mob) on this land mass would rush right back to Washington, D.C. in a violent effort to re-establish "our heritage." The government is a group of individuals who take justice into their own hands.

From the footnotes: "In a state of nature (anarchy)..." Finally! We agree. Anarchy is natural. This is what Stefan Molyneux tried to bring up in "Everyday Anarchy," I believe.

"For example, if a person had to choose between telling the truth or not to a Nazi storm trooper as to the whereabouts of a Jew whom he has hidden, then lying would be called for (see Machan 1998b, 27)." Okay, this may be off the subject a bit, but I disagree here also. Lying is never "called for," and I'm speaking here as one who has lied. None of my previous lies was ever justified, only the cowardly way of dealing with a fearful situation. The ideal, when confronted by a Nazi officer demanding answers, is to say, "I will not tell you where I have hidden my Jewish friend, you death-oriented f*ck." I only read "Atlas Shrugged" once, but I'm quite certain that John Galt never lied, did he? Even being tortured is no excuse for lying, although it is certainly understandable. To lie is to initiate coercion, as it were, against the truth, which is immovable and an essential component of volition. Every lie I ever told was death-oriented.

"Retribution may also include punishment (incarceration), particularly if the person is a potential threat to others." Define "threat," and explain why anyone should ever be punished. If someone initiates coercion against me, I want the coercion to stop, and to be compensated if desired, and that's that. If I cannot be compensated, then I want to be left alone. The minute I want someone to be punished, I am, in essence, desirous of revenge, which is initiatorily coercive, and death-oriented. To this day, I indulge vengeful fantasies based on earlier hurts, and I now acknowledge that such thinking is death-oriented, which is factual, as based on my article "Coercion Is Death."

"I argue that it is morally incumbent upon a person to retaliate if his rights have been violated by another." Define "morally," and how this stacks up against "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34), or "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses" (Matthew 18:35). That's about two thousand years worth of philosophy she's going up against. She'd better know her stuff, but based on the premises thus far that I've read, she's not convincing me. I don't believe in Jesus anymore, but I consider myself a "Post-Christian," meaning that the wisdom in the Four Gospels is so massive, that I think everyone ought to be familiar with it. And when I say "ought," I mean that I want everyone to be familiar with it. We'd all be a lot better off.

"Virtues, like living beings, are mortal." Define "virtue," and the only living things known to science are plants and animals. Perhaps this was a metaphor, or hyperbole? Unless there's some super-smart sci-fi geek out there that can enlighten me further. In the article I've already mentioned, "Coercion Is Death," I use death to describe the death of volition, relationships, and wealth because I see these three things as being inseparable or crucial to individuality, which is indeed living. I'm living it now. And loving it.

"A case could be made that if A contracts for B to perform in the leading role of a play three days hence, and B fails to do so, then A has a right to compensation (payment for damages or some equivalent of that). The basis for this would be the Principle of Reciprocity. However, Rothbard would counter that B cannot alienate his will. That is, the actor has the right not to show up. Such an agreement or contract is unenforceable." Rothbard is correct. This is why theatrical producers hire understudies, and why they write the checks.

"I believe that the right to life implies that the accused as well as those incarcerated are entitled to physical integrity; that is, their punishment should not result in cruel or unusual pain and suffering." Define "physical integrity," and how this integrity does not include my ability to physically move myself to the location I desire, if by chance, I ever find myself falsely accused and convicted by the government that needs to initiate coercion on behalf of children's "rights." Furthermore, please also define "cruel or unusual," a definition that has devolved so far down that it now merely means "organ failure."

I never even got to the part where she talks about children and their "needs," and I don't think I will. I cannot comprehend that whatever argument she uses would answer any of the above. I appreciate her efforts, and she’s on her way to something I can agree with, but not nearly far enough.