Ayn Rand
Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.
“Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84
Showing posts with label "rights". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "rights". Show all posts
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Moral Realism and Language Games
Moral realism is grounded in the real world of "the political". What is claimed to be "moral" cannot be grasped without language. And language becomes the problem of diversity. Diversity of interests make for our public climate of "debate" about what "should" claim universal right to make the "goals" for societal benefit. So, what can be "the moral", if there are diverse ways of expressing the "moral"? The academic disciplines seek to claim the "moral" for their own purposes. But, all of these claims should be limited by our Constitutional government! We cannot allow the "universal" to undermine the personal, nor our nation-state.
Moral realism is based on Constitutional government in the poltical realm, where "the rule of law is King", not Dictators, Monarchs, Chiefs, Leaders, or Presidents! The rule of law makes definitions about nations and their values. Without such a government, the individual serves some other ends, than being an "end in himself"! This is the "rub" for us in the West, today. The liberal want to liberalize what cannot be liberalized without undermining the very basis of our protections, the rule of law!
Academic freedom is one of our highest values because we do not believe that any form of knowledge has a right to primacy over others. In other words, the political claim to knowledge should not have more power over other areas of knowledge in the Academy. Otherwise, we limit other perspectives, and make unwise or ungrounded decisions based on values that might limit the wider range of knowledge. I think such has happened with the natural sciences and economics. These have become politicized. And the religious claims to knowlege have underwritten these claims as absolute! Therefore, the environment, and the poor are the driving force behind political power. Political power that is driven for speicific goals, undermines the very basis of our Constitutional government. Politics then, become a war to maintain the power to control "language" or the attempt to defeat such "language" and expand the information base, so the "common" will beocme empowered. The Tea Party movement seeks to bring accountability to government in such a way.
Our country values liberty, as justice, because we believe that individuals must have the right to their life and property. These are negative rights, as government does not seek to impose these rights, but does defend them if they are undermined. We do not value those that make "special claims" about political power. Power is about personal ownership of one's life, Government must be limited, not expanded. Otherwise, we limit the personal to the "common" and it undermines liberty as a value for a "universal value" of some other definition, i.e. the definition of the "empowered class".. Personal choice is based on personal values, not universal ones. Universal values, might limit personal ones, which undermine our understanding of the "moral" of a Constitutional government.
Today, we are challenged as to our diversity and the laws that protect diversity. Shairia law claims a "right" to religious tolerance in our society, that undermines our cultural values of equality and liberty of conscience. And the illegal immigrant claims "universal right" under the "Declaration of Human Rights". Is the "universal" to undermine the law of the nation state? Are we to tolerate what undermines our very survival? Our laws protect our survival, because they set limitations, while protecting liberty. We cannot undermine our Constitutional government and our citizens right to protection under those laws.
Shairia cannot be allowed unless we fail to make laws that protect from the abuses that we deem inhumane treatment to the child, or the unequal treatment of women. That would limit radical Muslims from infilterating our country.
As to the illegal immigrant that fails to meet our immigration policies. We need to enforce the law, and we need to think through what to do about the drug trafficking that undermines our society, while appealing to those crossing our borders. Those immigrants that come to our country to find economic liberty must be taught how to make thier own life in their own country. Those that are here legally should be part of the solution in encouraging change in their home society. This way, our country, and theirs benefit. But, we cannot afford to promote nation-building, when other countries do not do their part.
Humane behavior needn't undermine our national interests. But, it should limit the resources we give to others. We cannot do something we cannot afford. We must be committed to viability at home, otherwise, we defeat ouselves in the proces of our "moral concern" for others. Such stipulations about our "investments" abroad must be studied. We can't have our country limited by environmental concerns, that undermine our own economic viability, while other countries are allowed that liberty.
Such issues as our natural environment, and "the poor" have been useful and used by the political class to further goals that subvert our national interests.
While scientists like to define the 'moral" on the principle of the natural, the political scientists like to view "the moral" on our constitutional government. So what is "moral"? That depends on one's interests and values. The liberal would uphold "natural selection", while the conservative believes in an equalization of power where all are created equal.
I read once where America is a country that was founded on pragmatism, and moral idealism! Our ideals allow liberty under law. Ordered liberty. And our pragmatic values should not be politicized to the extent that moral realism undermines another's right to describe things in another "language". Americans haven't valued "propaganda"!
Moral realism is based on Constitutional government in the poltical realm, where "the rule of law is King", not Dictators, Monarchs, Chiefs, Leaders, or Presidents! The rule of law makes definitions about nations and their values. Without such a government, the individual serves some other ends, than being an "end in himself"! This is the "rub" for us in the West, today. The liberal want to liberalize what cannot be liberalized without undermining the very basis of our protections, the rule of law!
Academic freedom is one of our highest values because we do not believe that any form of knowledge has a right to primacy over others. In other words, the political claim to knowledge should not have more power over other areas of knowledge in the Academy. Otherwise, we limit other perspectives, and make unwise or ungrounded decisions based on values that might limit the wider range of knowledge. I think such has happened with the natural sciences and economics. These have become politicized. And the religious claims to knowlege have underwritten these claims as absolute! Therefore, the environment, and the poor are the driving force behind political power. Political power that is driven for speicific goals, undermines the very basis of our Constitutional government. Politics then, become a war to maintain the power to control "language" or the attempt to defeat such "language" and expand the information base, so the "common" will beocme empowered. The Tea Party movement seeks to bring accountability to government in such a way.
Our country values liberty, as justice, because we believe that individuals must have the right to their life and property. These are negative rights, as government does not seek to impose these rights, but does defend them if they are undermined. We do not value those that make "special claims" about political power. Power is about personal ownership of one's life, Government must be limited, not expanded. Otherwise, we limit the personal to the "common" and it undermines liberty as a value for a "universal value" of some other definition, i.e. the definition of the "empowered class".. Personal choice is based on personal values, not universal ones. Universal values, might limit personal ones, which undermine our understanding of the "moral" of a Constitutional government.
Today, we are challenged as to our diversity and the laws that protect diversity. Shairia law claims a "right" to religious tolerance in our society, that undermines our cultural values of equality and liberty of conscience. And the illegal immigrant claims "universal right" under the "Declaration of Human Rights". Is the "universal" to undermine the law of the nation state? Are we to tolerate what undermines our very survival? Our laws protect our survival, because they set limitations, while protecting liberty. We cannot undermine our Constitutional government and our citizens right to protection under those laws.
Shairia cannot be allowed unless we fail to make laws that protect from the abuses that we deem inhumane treatment to the child, or the unequal treatment of women. That would limit radical Muslims from infilterating our country.
As to the illegal immigrant that fails to meet our immigration policies. We need to enforce the law, and we need to think through what to do about the drug trafficking that undermines our society, while appealing to those crossing our borders. Those immigrants that come to our country to find economic liberty must be taught how to make thier own life in their own country. Those that are here legally should be part of the solution in encouraging change in their home society. This way, our country, and theirs benefit. But, we cannot afford to promote nation-building, when other countries do not do their part.
Humane behavior needn't undermine our national interests. But, it should limit the resources we give to others. We cannot do something we cannot afford. We must be committed to viability at home, otherwise, we defeat ouselves in the proces of our "moral concern" for others. Such stipulations about our "investments" abroad must be studied. We can't have our country limited by environmental concerns, that undermine our own economic viability, while other countries are allowed that liberty.
Such issues as our natural environment, and "the poor" have been useful and used by the political class to further goals that subvert our national interests.
While scientists like to define the 'moral" on the principle of the natural, the political scientists like to view "the moral" on our constitutional government. So what is "moral"? That depends on one's interests and values. The liberal would uphold "natural selection", while the conservative believes in an equalization of power where all are created equal.
I read once where America is a country that was founded on pragmatism, and moral idealism! Our ideals allow liberty under law. Ordered liberty. And our pragmatic values should not be politicized to the extent that moral realism undermines another's right to describe things in another "language". Americans haven't valued "propaganda"!
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
When the Egoist Is Challenged By Virtue
The Egoist believes that "self interest" is an end, as he is a end in himself. But, what if the Egoist is challenged by virtue?. That is, the needs of the community, the world or the "other".
This is when the Egoist must grapple with his own priorities, life values and goals. It is when the Egoist is approached by another with a proposition. The Egoist understands that it is his right to consider the proposition or reject it outright. This is the basis of social contract and business ethics.
The Categorial Imperative and the Golden Rule is an "ideal", but the real world does not work on these values, principles or ideals. And our Founers knew this. This was why they balanced power between the branches of government. And it is also the basis of upright dealing in business. Full access to what is expected and required in a givern job is the basis of "life's" stability. It is the basis of transparency in government. And the basis of a free society. Government is not to intrude into the private lives of the individual and make demands. Individual have the right to challenge such investigations and intrustion into their life by "Big Brother", or moral busybodies!
The whole basis of Obamacare is based on the assumption that people are entitled to certain guaruntees. The government is to guaruntee in a positive way those that are less fortunate. Others disagree. These believe that the individual must have the priority of choosing about his life and this is based on a limited government, not the positive rights of government.
We must not be ignorant of how totaltalitarian governments gain ground and footholds in society. Or we will be paying the price of that ignorance. We must not allow or ignore such behavior that is disrepectful and dishonoring of "The People"!
This is when the Egoist must grapple with his own priorities, life values and goals. It is when the Egoist is approached by another with a proposition. The Egoist understands that it is his right to consider the proposition or reject it outright. This is the basis of social contract and business ethics.
The Categorial Imperative and the Golden Rule is an "ideal", but the real world does not work on these values, principles or ideals. And our Founers knew this. This was why they balanced power between the branches of government. And it is also the basis of upright dealing in business. Full access to what is expected and required in a givern job is the basis of "life's" stability. It is the basis of transparency in government. And the basis of a free society. Government is not to intrude into the private lives of the individual and make demands. Individual have the right to challenge such investigations and intrustion into their life by "Big Brother", or moral busybodies!
The whole basis of Obamacare is based on the assumption that people are entitled to certain guaruntees. The government is to guaruntee in a positive way those that are less fortunate. Others disagree. These believe that the individual must have the priority of choosing about his life and this is based on a limited government, not the positive rights of government.
We must not be ignorant of how totaltalitarian governments gain ground and footholds in society. Or we will be paying the price of that ignorance. We must not allow or ignore such behavior that is disrepectful and dishonoring of "The People"!
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Can Religion EVER Bring Justice?
Religion because of its absolute claims on "truth" cannot bring about justice, as religion must discriminate. Religion, by definition, is organized by creeds, religious government, convictions and "prejuidiced" by whatever is considered to be "the truth", or the forming or framing of "truth"! The religious are not taught to be "critical" but, "believing", "trusting", submissive. Those that are leading such religious organizations are prone to err toward their prejuidiced viewpoint. Their values will rule their organization, and this is their right in a free society. America allows for such religious intolerance. So, religion can never be just, in a universal sense. Religion is prejudiced and those that are under its influence will also be prejuidiced.
But, is American government a universal? Yes, because it values individual conscience, in regards to religious conviction and it gives all the right to trial by jury and believes in the innocence of the accused until proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The symbol for justice is a blind-folded woman holding scales, symbolizing the equality before the law, without regard to race, creed or gender. All have the right to petition the government for re-dress from grievances. I value these "rights", as all Americans should.
The religious think that theirs is a "higher law" and a "higher call" than basic "secular justice". This gives them the "right" to do what they want according to their particular conscience. All are not created equal in their view. Justice is only for those who serve their particular values, views, belief s, opinions, political goals, etc. Religion is discriminatory. But, if I am honest, we all are discriminatory, as without discrimination we will hold no beliefs or values at all. So, let the culture wars continue. They are only healthy symbol that our society is still free!!!
But, is American government a universal? Yes, because it values individual conscience, in regards to religious conviction and it gives all the right to trial by jury and believes in the innocence of the accused until proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The symbol for justice is a blind-folded woman holding scales, symbolizing the equality before the law, without regard to race, creed or gender. All have the right to petition the government for re-dress from grievances. I value these "rights", as all Americans should.
The religious think that theirs is a "higher law" and a "higher call" than basic "secular justice". This gives them the "right" to do what they want according to their particular conscience. All are not created equal in their view. Justice is only for those who serve their particular values, views, belief s, opinions, political goals, etc. Religion is discriminatory. But, if I am honest, we all are discriminatory, as without discrimination we will hold no beliefs or values at all. So, let the culture wars continue. They are only healthy symbol that our society is still free!!!
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Choice, Conviction, and Commitment
What makes humans different from other animals? Both conservative and liberals will agree that choice is a value to/for humans. Animals do not make choices, do they? They are herded, trained, modified, by humans (the more intelligent animal) or act instinctively for survival.
Although humans do act to survive, we can use our reason, and our choice to control ourselves as to the means of meeting the need to survive and flourish. We do not have to kill another human because we need to survive. Self-control is what civilizes man. It is his conviction about another's right to existence that limits his "right to life" at all costs. So, besides choice, there are convictions that are important values to society or civilization.
Convictions are about cultural reference points. American culture is defined by the Constitution. Fortunately, in the West we value the individual and uphold his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our commitment to such values cause us to value another's right to liberty, as well. Liberty of conscience is an important value for the Founders, as it protected diverse convictions.
Today on a news program, it was argued that a Supreme Court Justice should believe in "rights" as given by a Creator, so that the Constitution is interpreted as an "originalist". But a Supreme Court Judge argued that one should not have these "religious qualifications/tests for a Supreme Court Justice, or for any office, for that matter. I agree with her, because a justice should be blind to any personal opinion or prejuidice in regards to the Constitution and the case brought before the Court. If a justice was too ideological, whether conservative or liberal, then it might inhibit justice because it would limit the judge's ability to hear without prejuidice or bias concerning the issue or the person involved. All citizens, no matter if they believe in a Creator or not, are to be given the right to Representation before the law!
Americans value the right to dissent and resist a government that does not respect liberty. And liberty is about differences of value in choice, conviction and commitment.
Although humans do act to survive, we can use our reason, and our choice to control ourselves as to the means of meeting the need to survive and flourish. We do not have to kill another human because we need to survive. Self-control is what civilizes man. It is his conviction about another's right to existence that limits his "right to life" at all costs. So, besides choice, there are convictions that are important values to society or civilization.
Convictions are about cultural reference points. American culture is defined by the Constitution. Fortunately, in the West we value the individual and uphold his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our commitment to such values cause us to value another's right to liberty, as well. Liberty of conscience is an important value for the Founders, as it protected diverse convictions.
Today on a news program, it was argued that a Supreme Court Justice should believe in "rights" as given by a Creator, so that the Constitution is interpreted as an "originalist". But a Supreme Court Judge argued that one should not have these "religious qualifications/tests for a Supreme Court Justice, or for any office, for that matter. I agree with her, because a justice should be blind to any personal opinion or prejuidice in regards to the Constitution and the case brought before the Court. If a justice was too ideological, whether conservative or liberal, then it might inhibit justice because it would limit the judge's ability to hear without prejuidice or bias concerning the issue or the person involved. All citizens, no matter if they believe in a Creator or not, are to be given the right to Representation before the law!
Americans value the right to dissent and resist a government that does not respect liberty. And liberty is about differences of value in choice, conviction and commitment.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Fort Hood's Execution
"An eye for an eye" was the Old Testament balance for "justice". An "eye for an eye" limited revenge to fairness. One could not kill another because of the loss of an eye. Maybe this is the measure we should meet out with such crimes as happened at Fort Hood.
Everyone knows by now, that this will be a military trial, which is fair, as it was on military soil and the military suffered the loss.
I do applaud many news organizations for prefacing their "news" with qualifications of "innocence", because we are a people that believe that one is innocent until proven guilty under a trial by jury. I am glad for this.
But, I am not satisfied with everyone tiptoeing around the connection of Islam to this man. He was a Muslim. But, to protect our nation from an uprising that would hinder the climate of tolerance, news sources cover over the details that might suggest a religious motive.
The athiests are crying for a banning of religious freedom, because of their fear of radicalism, while the conservative religious believer is adamantly holding to their right to "free speech" and free belief. The climate in America is at a boiling point over issues concerning religion, race, and "rights".
I grieve for the loss of these soldiers, but I also grieve over the loss of integrity for this psychiatrist. He needs help. I am hoping that an "eye for an eye" will turn out to be a measure of justice as the trial commences.
Let us hope that this will never happen again within military quarters and that military personel are all aware of the consequences of being "politically correct", when there are valid concerns and ultimate costs of lives.
Everyone knows by now, that this will be a military trial, which is fair, as it was on military soil and the military suffered the loss.
I do applaud many news organizations for prefacing their "news" with qualifications of "innocence", because we are a people that believe that one is innocent until proven guilty under a trial by jury. I am glad for this.
But, I am not satisfied with everyone tiptoeing around the connection of Islam to this man. He was a Muslim. But, to protect our nation from an uprising that would hinder the climate of tolerance, news sources cover over the details that might suggest a religious motive.
The athiests are crying for a banning of religious freedom, because of their fear of radicalism, while the conservative religious believer is adamantly holding to their right to "free speech" and free belief. The climate in America is at a boiling point over issues concerning religion, race, and "rights".
I grieve for the loss of these soldiers, but I also grieve over the loss of integrity for this psychiatrist. He needs help. I am hoping that an "eye for an eye" will turn out to be a measure of justice as the trial commences.
Let us hope that this will never happen again within military quarters and that military personel are all aware of the consequences of being "politically correct", when there are valid concerns and ultimate costs of lives.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Rights, Liberty and Work
On my side bar, I have a blog called For Clavigora. The last post that Dr. Smith wrote was about work in an asylum. And how rights took 'the right to work' away from these inmates.
State intervention in regards to personal commitment to work is what I think is a wrongly focused "right". People in free societies can choose their vocations. And choice is what liberty is about.
These people in the asylum were "demoralized" because of their "lack of work", once "rights" were granted. Rights can be distorted when they are universalized without connection to a "moral base", or social order.
But, while the Protestant work ethic has guided our nation and underwritten much of our prosperity, it has also caused great harm to families, communities, and the culture itself. Driven people are addicted people, and yet, our culture deems them ambitious and hold these up as examples.
Work is neutral as to its "moral" base. Work is not unlike any other virtue or vice, it can be "good or bad". We all need self-reflection to know when work becomes an obstacle to other important aspects in our lives.
State intervention in regards to personal commitment to work is what I think is a wrongly focused "right". People in free societies can choose their vocations. And choice is what liberty is about.
These people in the asylum were "demoralized" because of their "lack of work", once "rights" were granted. Rights can be distorted when they are universalized without connection to a "moral base", or social order.
But, while the Protestant work ethic has guided our nation and underwritten much of our prosperity, it has also caused great harm to families, communities, and the culture itself. Driven people are addicted people, and yet, our culture deems them ambitious and hold these up as examples.
Work is neutral as to its "moral" base. Work is not unlike any other virtue or vice, it can be "good or bad". We all need self-reflection to know when work becomes an obstacle to other important aspects in our lives.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Balance of Power in American Government
I was thinking the other morning about the recent abuses of power in our government.
Bush used the executive branch to subvert the judicial branch in carrying out or not carrying out the law (depending on how one interprets the law).The judicial branch is to interpret law and render it justness in specific cases.
At Guatanomo Bay, it was unclear what the law required as to "international law" and human rights issues versus our national security and our own laws concerning jurisprudence. And it seemd as if Bush didn't care what the courts would say about it. All being said, most think that irregardless of "standing", these prisoners deserved humane treatment. But, in more discussion of this issue, more became concerned about humane treatment when it came to other issues of "investigation" and national security. These are not easily decided, as they cross the divide over humanity's "right", irregardless of citizenship, or whether one's own right as a nation deserves protection and the "criminal" has given up his "right" of protection under the law. Even in our everyday world, our country demands at arrest the criminal to be "read his rights" to defense, etc. But, is this only a "citizen's right"? Immigration policy has been discussed in this domain. Where do the requirements of justice over-ride one's duty to country? And where does duty to country actualize justice?
We cannot apply justice where we do not live. We can theorize about how justice would behave, but we cannot be just in such situations unless we are the lawyers in international courts. But, justice does demand a underlying frame, which is in our Constitution.
On the other hand, the recent "bail out money" has implications also about our government's balance of power to the executive branch in this adminstration. Congress represents the legislative branch where laws are made or determined in application. Congress must understand their responsibility to the public in the way they handle the public's monies. Certian ideologies do not distinguish very largely between the public and private domains in this area. These think of public monies as "one big pot" where we all can vie for public monies. These are the ones who sometimes mis-use the system in their greedy desire for "hand-outs".
Public monies come from private hands that have worked hard and long hours to give back to their government for its protection. Those who do not look on these hard-working people as anything but pinions to be a useful means of enslavement to the government's outrageous appetite have no regard for the individual worker, whether professional or blue collar.
It is too easy for government to be looked upon as a "nanny state' where it soon becomes a "co-depedent"state, where the State becomes the "Hero" and those in government use their positions to enlarge their own lives.
Abuse of power is only the result of unaccountability to the public or those that are "paying the bills". Congress should remain balance between our two party system and allow both voices a hearing in Congressional chambers. Otherwise, we are doomed to be a One Party State, under a One Party Dictator.
Bush used the executive branch to subvert the judicial branch in carrying out or not carrying out the law (depending on how one interprets the law).The judicial branch is to interpret law and render it justness in specific cases.
At Guatanomo Bay, it was unclear what the law required as to "international law" and human rights issues versus our national security and our own laws concerning jurisprudence. And it seemd as if Bush didn't care what the courts would say about it. All being said, most think that irregardless of "standing", these prisoners deserved humane treatment. But, in more discussion of this issue, more became concerned about humane treatment when it came to other issues of "investigation" and national security. These are not easily decided, as they cross the divide over humanity's "right", irregardless of citizenship, or whether one's own right as a nation deserves protection and the "criminal" has given up his "right" of protection under the law. Even in our everyday world, our country demands at arrest the criminal to be "read his rights" to defense, etc. But, is this only a "citizen's right"? Immigration policy has been discussed in this domain. Where do the requirements of justice over-ride one's duty to country? And where does duty to country actualize justice?
We cannot apply justice where we do not live. We can theorize about how justice would behave, but we cannot be just in such situations unless we are the lawyers in international courts. But, justice does demand a underlying frame, which is in our Constitution.
On the other hand, the recent "bail out money" has implications also about our government's balance of power to the executive branch in this adminstration. Congress represents the legislative branch where laws are made or determined in application. Congress must understand their responsibility to the public in the way they handle the public's monies. Certian ideologies do not distinguish very largely between the public and private domains in this area. These think of public monies as "one big pot" where we all can vie for public monies. These are the ones who sometimes mis-use the system in their greedy desire for "hand-outs".
Public monies come from private hands that have worked hard and long hours to give back to their government for its protection. Those who do not look on these hard-working people as anything but pinions to be a useful means of enslavement to the government's outrageous appetite have no regard for the individual worker, whether professional or blue collar.
It is too easy for government to be looked upon as a "nanny state' where it soon becomes a "co-depedent"state, where the State becomes the "Hero" and those in government use their positions to enlarge their own lives.
Abuse of power is only the result of unaccountability to the public or those that are "paying the bills". Congress should remain balance between our two party system and allow both voices a hearing in Congressional chambers. Otherwise, we are doomed to be a One Party State, under a One Party Dictator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
