Tag Archives | rights

What is the purpose of government under capitalism?

It is to protect rights that governments are instituted. A proper government’s only responsibility is to protect the rights of the individual, by banning the initiation of force, thus making all relations between men peaceful, i.e., free from the threat of violence and fraud.

In a political context, freedom has only one specific meaning — freedom from the initiation of force by other men. By initiation I mean those who start the use of force to achieve their ends, i.e., a bank robber. Only the initiation of force against a man can stop his mind, thus rendering it useless as a means of survival. Only by the initiation of force can a man be: prevented from speaking, or robbed of his possessions, or murdered. Only through the initiation of force can a man’s rights be violated.

 

Suggested Reading:

The Nature of Government by Ayn Rand

0 | capitalism, government

Do children have rights?

Children, unlike fetuses, do possess individual rights. A new born child, unlike a fetus, is a physically separate entity. A child is an actual human being, with a capability to reason, and thus a child has the same right to life as any adult. However, the application of this right for a young child differs in practice from that of an adult, as a child’s conceptual faculty is not fully developed. This is why a six year old girl does not have the right to choose to enter into a sexual relationship—and an adult does.

2 | children

Does a man who murders another man have a right to life?

The death penalty when used properly is Pro-Life.

Any man who murders another man, has declared that he does not accept the principle of individual rights. He is worse then an animal, as he has chosen to abdicate his reason, in order to act like an animal. He has adopted the code of the jungle, and must be dealt with like the animals in the jungle. He can make no claim to the principle of rights for protection. He ethically deserves death.

0 | death penalty

Is there a right to education?

There is no such thing as a ‘right to education’, since such a ‘right’ makes slaves of those who are physically forced to pay or teach for someone else’s so called right. For this reason alone public schooling should not be saved, or reformed, but it should be abolished — as it is a violation of individual (human) rights.

0 | education

What do you mean by the initiation of force?

In a political context, freedom has only one specific meaning — freedom from the initiation of force by other men. By initiation of force I mean those who start the use of force to achieve their ends, i.e., a bank robber. Only the initiation of force against a man can stop his mind, thus rendering it useless as a means of survival. Only by the initiation of force can a man be prevented from speaking, or robbed of his possessions, or murdered. Only through the initiation of force can a man’s rights be violated.

0 | force, government

What is freedom in a political context?

Freedom, under capitalism, has only one meaning: freedom from the initiation of force by others. In a political context, freedom means to live in a social system based on individual rights, or in practical terms, freedom has only one specific meaning — freedom from the initiation of force by other men. By initiation I mean those who start the use of force to achieve their ends, i.e., a bank robber. Only the initiation of force against a man can stop his mind, thus rendering it useless as a means of survival. Only by the initiation of force can a man be: prevented from speaking, or robbed of his possessions, or murdered. Only through the initiation of force can a man’s rights be violated.

0 | freedom

What do individuals delegate to government?

In order to place the retaliatory use of force under objective legal control — that is, under clearly defined laws that are logically deduced from the principle of rights — those who make up society delegate their right to retaliate against those who initiate force, to government.

0 | government

Does government’s monopoly on the use of force give it the right to initiate (start) force against others?

Under no conditions may government violate anyone’s rights, by initiating force against others. A proper government is permitted to use force to retaliate against a thief who has initiated force against someone (in the act of robbing them). However, a proper government is not permitted to copy the means of private criminals by initiating force against its citizens. The government is not even permitted to rob them of their wealth–even, or rather especially, if the stolen loot is to be used for so called “noble” purposes, such as for the sick and poor. No end (even for the “poor”) ever justifies an illegitimate means (the initiation of force). Any man who initiates force against others is a dictator, and should be treated as such, to the extent he initiates force.

0 | force, government

Doesn’t the cause of the “public good” justify the initiation of force?

No one may initiate force for any reason whatsoever, even if that alleged purpose is for the “public good”. For is not the individual whose rights are being violated for the “public good”, a member of the “public” also? How can such a violation be in the public’s good? For is not his good also the good of the public, of which he is a member? The truth is, such violations are only in the irrational interests of a division of the public, but are not in the interests of the entire public.

0 | force, morality

How does government carry out its’ duties in practice?

To protect rights, government require essentially three things: an army — to protect against foreign invaders, a police force — to protect against domestic criminals, and a court system — to settle honest disputes that arise, and to punish criminals according to objectively predefined laws.

155 | government