great video from FOX news

[vapero]

 

[caramel]

Doesn't cover well the situation where the other man gets too nosy, does it?

 

[caramel]

She does, but not in the context of second hand smoke/vapor....

"If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”"

and:

"A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated.

Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division—not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, nor to the arbitrary decree of society. No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man."

And:

"There is no such thing as “a right to a job”—there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals."


On ecology in general:

"City smog and filthy rivers are not good for men(though they are not the kind of danger that the ecological panic-mongers proclaim them to be). This is a scientific, technological problem--not a political one--and it can be solved only by technology. Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death."

and a few more passages that may interest some:

Ayn Rand on Environment

Too many things to address, just for now I'll take the most glaring one:

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

since this is what I initially debated. And I stated that for every right, there is a counter-right to claim. Thus there are no rights.

The fundamental problem with Ayn is that she starts from the premise that the "free market" is a god given, indisputable right. Yet it is very difficult to justify such assertion. "Free market" is not universally accepted as being moral and ethical (like "thou' shall not kill"). Accepting it as an axiom can only lead to strange results, like infringing the rights of those that want to organize themselves in a different way.

 

[Kent C]

Too many things to address, just for now I'll take the most glaring one:



since this is what I initially debated. And stated that for every right, there is a counter-right to claim. Thus there are no rights.

The fundamental problem with Ayn is that she starts from the premise that the "free market" is a god given, indisputable right. Yet it is very difficult to justify such assertion. "Free market" is not universally accepted as being moral and ethical (like "thou' shall not kill"). Accepting it as an axiom can only lead to strange results, like infringing the rights of those that want to organize themselves in a different way.

I disagree but this isn't the place to continue the discussion where you're heading. As far as 'for every right, there is a counter right to claim' - that's pretty absurd - that would be like you have a right to life but I have a right to kill you (no aggression intended but only to show the absurdity). And... only to inform not to discuss - if you think Rand thinks the free market is 'god given' you really don't know much about Rand. But you're not alone.

If the topic goes back to the video, I may respond - I have yet to watch the actual show, although I did run the video link in this thread. Otherwise I'm done here.... PM if needed....

 

[caramel]

I disagree but this isn't the place to continue the discussion where you're heading. As far as 'for every right, there is a counter right to claim' - that's pretty absurd - that would be like you have a right to life but I have a right to kill you (no aggression intended but only to show the absurdity). And... only to inform not to discuss - if you think Rand thinks the free market is 'god given' you really don't know much about Rand. But you're not alone.

If the topic goes back to the video, I may respond - I have yet to watch the actual show, although I did run the video link in this thread. Otherwise I'm done here.... PM if needed....

I'm still on track, with the "rights as an argument don't work".

For your example, I can counter with one where someone would need to kill someone else in order to save himself. Two climbers stuck on a mountain wall and the only escape is to cut the other guy's cord.

So coming back to the video. I think the best arguments are those involving reason and ethics.

 

[Kent C]

I'm still on track, with the "rights as an argument don't work".

For your example, I can counter with one where someone would need to kill someone else in order to save himself. Two climbers stuck on a mountain wall and the only escape is to cut the other guy's cord.

So coming back to the video. I think the best arguments are those involving reason and ethics.

Ok... one more

re:underlined.. a common refrain in an attempt to discredit anything rational - ie the 'altruists' emergency argument' - go to emergencies! lol..

"The psychological results of altruism may be observed in the fact that a great
many people approach the subject of ethics by asking such questions as:
"Should one risk one’s life to help a man who is: a) drowning, b) trapped in
a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his fingernails
over an abyss?”


Rand does handle such things this way:

"It is important to differentiate between the rules of conduct in an emergency situation and the rules of conduct in the normal conditions of human existence. This does not mean a double standard of morality: the standard and the basic principles remain the same, but their application to either case requires precise definitions."

The full essay is on page 39 here:

http://philo.abhinav.ac.in/Objectivism/Ayn Rand - The Virtue of Selfishness.pdf

There are other handlings elsewhere that are really funny and interesting.

Funny:
A situation where there's a life raft than can only support 8 people and there are 9 people in the water.

If the 9 people are egoists/rational self-interested - they chose straws, flip a coin and 8 people live.
If the 9 people are altruists - they are all jumping off the raft (sacrifice themselves) to make room for the others. All 9 die.

Interesting:
You make it to shore and you will die without food or water, You break into a cabin (a violation of someone's rights), save yourself and later repay the owner for any damage, food or drink that you took.

Your life is your ultimate value. (highest on the hierarchy of concepts) Rights, in normal conditions, extend that value. (a bit lower on the hierarchy, trumped by the ultimate value in emergency conditions).

 

[caramel]

One should look a little bit closely into the psychology of "altruism".

Let's start with family. Sacrificing myself for another family member may also be viewed as the sole alternative to end my life in happiness (vs. having awful remorses and nightmares for another 5 years then having to hang myself to end my misery). Or to avoid unhappiness if you want to put it this way.

Coming back to the climbers, it's possible that I still couldn't stand the idea of cutting the other guy's cord, even if he's not family. And I would look to the help of reason and ethics to decide, since they would make the outcome more palatable. Like in we evaluate who is in the better position to get out of the situation and the other one cuts his cord himself. Or the guy who, through his own mistakes and stubborness, led to the situation and now takes responsibility. Or we draw straws. Or anything that at least would create the illusion that it was the unavoidable but right thing to do. And I agree with you that ethics without reason would lead to a stalemate. But it was ethics + reason what we did there, not "rights". Or I can give you the example with the boat where we all start fighting for our "rights" with the outcome that we sink the boat and all die.

The "emergency" situations are invoked just because they are needed to bring up the "life" issue. In mundane situations we cannot really get that far that easy.

But don't worry. Based on the "rights" theory we have created a "swim or sink" society, and we're still perfecting it. Soon it will become an "emergency as a lifestyle" thing.

 

[caramel]

Sorry that I had to split it, but I'm on a tablet and risk to lose the whole text when it's too long.

Here's a temporary conclusion I would like to draw, homing the whole thing on the target.

When discussing ecigs strictly from a "rights" perspective, we have "equal" rights with those that don't want them (in public or whatsoever) and we can't cut it based on just this argument.

If we also bring reason and ethics into discussion, then we can start talking about the inconvenience of seeing something that "looks like smoke" vs. the strong, physically debilitating experience of having a craving while trying to quit smoking,

 

[Kent C]

We have the right to vape as long as it harms no one. Not made up harm, not junk science harm, not harming one's sensibilities, offending perhaps, but not harming ones senses, only direct physical harm. If that is not true, then farting or having BO, wearing detectable perfume or cologne, having bad breath, in public would have to be included.