Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!trc
From: trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: rights for ssc-vax!sts
Message-ID: <372@houti.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Aug-83 12:13:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: houti.372
Posted: Mon Aug  8 12:13:26 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Aug-83 16:25:41 EDT
Lines: 46

Response to ssc-vax!sts - Stan:

First, I am glad you read some of Rand's work, but unless you paid very
careful attention to Galt's speech, and a few other speeches, I doubt
you have more that a "foggy feel" of what Objectivism says.  Sorry if this
sounds harsh - I intend it as constructive criticism.

It is true that humans can and do act irrationally.  The point that Objectivism
makes is that humans are *capable* of being rational.  Objectivism explicitly
declares that this is good - that is is the proper mode of living for humans.
Do you seriously want to claim that irrationality is the ideal condition for 
humans?  Do you want to base your ethics on what the irrational person will
do?  (Some would - I wont bother to argue with them, since anyone who rejects
rationality rejects any means of convincing them.)

A "right to something" is a right to action - the right to not have others
interfere with one as one tries to achieve that thing.  You have a right,
(derived from the right to live) to seek a job - but not a right to the 
job you seek.  You have a right to eat food you have, but not a right to
anyone's food at all.  A moral crime (as opposed to a legal crime - which may 
or may not be irrational, since it could be an immoral law) is always 
irrational.  That includes stealing for food or drugs.  As to starving, in 
general, I will assume that you are talking about starving in an environment 
where food is available.  In this case, one must ask - why is the person 
starving, and why cant they find work - even if it is sweeping a sidewalk or 
some other menial task?

As to solving "that problem in general" - I'm sorry, I'm not entirely clear
on what the general problem *is* that you refer to.  What would Rand's
"choosing the wealthier", if indeed she would, have to do with it?  Are
you refering to some supposed conflict of rights?  How, in the context of 
the above discussion of what rights are, would such a conflict arise?

It is not so much that you have a right to hear the truth, as you have
a right not to be deceived.  Note that this is derived from fundamental 
human rights.  You need to know the true nature of the reality surrounding 
you, in order to support your life via your rationality.  Being lied to is 
an act of interference with that process, and so an interference with your 
right to life.  The subliminal advertisements you refer to implicitly state 
"this product could not be sold (at least as well)  if potential customers 
were allowed to consider it consciously".  Thus, they are an attempt to subvert 
the customers rational processes, which are needed to support their lives.  
So, I would say that such should be illegal, as an attack on people's minds.

	Tom Craver
	houti!trc