Individual Rights

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

One Cannot Objectify Anything, Other Than Liberty

Men are born free. Some believe that liberty should be limited, because man is innately evil. Others believe that men are not innately "evil" but uninformed, or ignorant. What is necessary for society is to "order" or structure society, so that society functions. Such "order" is delegating "roles" for individuals to "perform".

"Irrational believers" that maintain that men are innately "evil" because of a "fall" from "God", or 'grace", are prone to think that one must be "saved", but from what? Some believe that one must be saved from "hell", as God will judge those that have not accepted his "way of salvation" which cleanses from "sin".Others believe that one must be saved from onself, because men are basically selfish. These think that paternalistic "patronizing" leadership is what is needful.

While it it true that children must learn to "live in society", there does come a time when adults must take ownership of thier life. Ownership means that one purposes their own goals, and lives independently giving back to society. in whatever area one desires. We wouldn't want to continue to support adults living as "children", in dependence on governmnet,or "God", as passivity is not ownership. And such dependent societies are not prosporous, or fulfilling to the individual within them.

Becoming an adult does not mean that one is independent from being human, from having "common need" of  survival, emotional support, encouragement, or help. But, it does mean that one has become self-directed and self-governed as to how and why one chooses to live their life, as they choose to do.

What one chooses has; everything to do with one's values, desires, and goals, and these are negotiable 'parallel universes" that one must navigate. So, one cannot objectify another's life, except to "dismiss it". We must all come to the conclusion that no one can live without "reasonable biases" in thier life commitments.

Our Son's Leaving

Today is a celebration of our youngest son, Nate. He has left our home, which is quite normal at his age. But, his mission is a noble one of serving our country.

Our older son had taken off work, so he, our daughter and Nate could eat breakfast together "one last time". After breakfast and Nate's last minute packing, our children and I sat in their Dad's study, one last time. And I saw Nate tear up and look away several times. I knew I was not going to make it without shedding a few myself.

As I took him to the recruiting office where he was to meet others for his ride to Indianapolis, I off-handedly remarked that he probably would not miss our small town. To my surprise, he said he had enjoyed growing up in the Mid-West, not because of the location, but because of the friends he had made. He said he would miss them. I was proud that he valued his friends and that his view of 'location, location" was "where his heart was". We have always tried to impart "family values" and relational priority.

At the recruiting station, he told me that he didn't want me to go in. He said he was in the Army now, underscoring his independence from "his Mom". I got out and he hugged me so tight and didn't even look my way, as he picked up his bag to walk away. I felt my heart torn, but I drove away giving him room to "grow", and take flight.

As he said, "I will miss the people, the friends I have made". And we will surely miss him.

Bless him.

Government's Intrusion Limits Choice

Government knows how to "give" at other's costs. They do it well, as they pay their contractors over and above the "local price". Such is the state of beauracratic governments that try to be "moral".

Governments cannot be "moral", as they do not have choice. People can only be moral, because they do or, at least, should have choice. Government binds choice in beaucratic "mess", so it limits the choices of individuals. Some seem to think that this "limitation of choice" is "good", because it will re-distribute wealth or "benefit the public". The "moral socialists" think it is "immoral" to make too much money! And countries that adhere to capitalism are culprits of corruption due to corporate greed.

Is it any less "immoral" to take from one to give to another? or to limit individual choice in giving or not giving? Those in powerful beauracratic systems do not seem to be "more moral" than the corporate world. But, what happens when govenment and the corporate world combine to "do good", or to "do business" for the "public good", at the costs of the taxpayer? I believe this is what we are seeing happen in our country today. Those in powerful positions are taking advantage of those who are dependent on the "power".

Americans used to be those who were independent, self-reliant and industrious, but now, it seems we have lost our "will" to be independent from government help. We depend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, Unemployment, etc. and now, we are told that we cannot do without the government's "help" in our healthcare! I think we have become indulgent and "entitled", without even realizing what we give up when we do limt our "independence".

I agree that some system shoud be in place for the disadvantaged, disabled, and those who cannot help their situations. But, our country has become too lethargic in becoming informed and understanding the issues, so that they can be "good citizens".

I hope that the healthcare "transformation", or "takeover" will be America's "wake-up" call!

Determined by Evolution, God, or Choice?

Rational people take responsibility for their lives, but reason is not the domain of determinism, by God or by evolution.

Evolution maintains that man is a product of chance, while Divine predestination determines by Sovereign Will. Blind Chance or Sovereign Will do not lead to responsible behavior. Chance leads one to disregard human life as nothing other than part and parcel of the natural order, while Divine Will disregards man as morally responsible or accountable for life in this world. Both undermine personal value and choice based on rationale.

Theistic evolutionists hold to "God" ordering the world through evolutionary means. But, at what point does man become responsible for the "chance" or "chaos" that occurs within reality? Some have argued at the "age of accountability", when the child reaches puberty. The Jewish religion and many others have a 'rite of passage" where the young person becomes an adult. Adults are called to self-determination or self-governance. But, not only is man responsible for himself, but man is to order the universe. Man determines, not nature or "god". But, if man determines, what is he to determine? Since man is a responsible being, then man should not determine another, but allow freedom of choice in responsible behavior.

The West understands social/political reality as one of contract or treaty. We negotiate and strategize with the other party, but we do not plan deterministically. Historically, this was not the case, as slaves were given, or exchanged in trade agreements, disregarding the slave's life and personal boundary. Kings had the pre-reogative to determine other's lives, but democracy values all life equally.

Evolutionists to be consistant would disregard any boundary of another as we are not separate entities but a "World Soul" or less. Divine Providence is no less culpable in disregarding the individual's life, if that is the pre-determined state of " God's will". There is no room in this view for personal boundary, as "God" is seen to be the Ultimate. Our wills should be nothing less than "His", which dissolves the distinction between God and man. Man is to become "One" with God. Personal, social and political distinction dissolve or really have no value or meaning when one views life in these ways.

America's values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness affirm the value of the individual in personal boundaries and moral choice. Moral value hinges on moral choice, otherwise, life is no more than an evolutionary "play" or God's "novel", where He is the Only character that really exists or matters.

I would much rather believe in freedom to be, to do, and determine my own destiny, without interference. Those who would like to help me find the way are welcome to do so, but only if they respect my choice and value my independence.