"The Nature of Rights" by Ayn Rand
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 окт 2018
- Ayn Rand at Columbia University -- part 11: The Nature of Rights
Course playlist: • Ayn Rand at Columbia U...
In this radio interview, Ayn Rand explains her theory of rights as a social application of morality, designed to ensure “those conditions of existence which are required by man’s nature for his proper survival.” The individual’s rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, she argues protect his ability to act on his own rational judgment, to choose his own values, and to keep the material product of his efforts. Rand addresses and rejects theories that rights are gifts from a supernatural power or from society. She also discusses the contradiction involved in asserting welfare rights to goods and services.
SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...
SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S RUclips CHANNEL
ruclips.net/user/subscription_...
ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world - and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.
SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...
EXPLORE ARI
www.AynRand.org
FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
/ aynrandinst
LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
/ aynrandinstitute
EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
campus.aynrand.org/
INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
objectivistconferences.com/
LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
aynrandcon.org/
A right is a moral concept that defines and sanctions a man's freedom of action in a social context.
In other words, it's the product of human will.
A Right is not a Moral concept . A Right is a Self entitlement feeling . It varies from society to society and something created by a relatively fulfilled society.
@@narayanprasad4008 No
@@Adrian-qi5ii No
@@mikeb5372 yes
So weird that they don’t teach this in public education. I wonder why? *sarcasm
If private property is proper, then public property is merely puberty.
@@greg_austin good pun
She was the ultimate hippy.
This woman was free as a bird, her mind. She unlocked me, and I'm forever greatful.
We belong to ourselves first, then to others, secondly.
That's the recipe for the best human experience to anyone could live by. You can't be happy with others, if you don't learn what happiness is to you, first!
Do what you want, but with the the choice of real freewill as it really is, in the way Ayn speaks of, it's also a recipe for better, more morally responsible society. You are free to reap the rewards, but also free to fail in free fall speed, the choice is yours to choose. That is freedom.
Respect for the individual, and the non-aggression principle, this the recipe for world peace.
Respect starts with your children, violence breeds violence.
When charity homes from the fruits of others wealth, and given for love of others, it's the recipe for the urging to contribute, to give back for the joy of kindness, causing others to willfully paying it forward in appreciation.
The respect of working for oneself, not the state, elite, religion, not some other ideal, is the recipe for freedom and prosperity.
This one single word "I".
"I" stands for individual.
Its "I" before "We".
When some says "we don't do that", they are actually telling you how to be a "sheeple".
Collectivism is a cancer.
sheep dog We The Living
Hippy, absolutely not! Hippies were frivolous, irresponsible silly people that chose immorality with a delusional utopian communist outlook.
You said: 'We belong to ourselves first, then to others, secondly.' Yet that is NOT what Any Rand says... She says we belong to ourselves first, last and always and forever... And EVERYONE else only belongs to THEMSELVES.... So we NEVER can belong to 'others, secondly' . . .
We belong to ourselves. Period.
@@jimedgcomb4597 100%, If we are happy to help others it is only because it serves our individual happiness.
No-one thinks, writes or speaks like this anymore, such a shame!
There is Aristotle and there is Ayn Rand
@@Jazzper79 True.. I will also add Thomas Aquinas and John Locke.
@@saumitrsharma2816 I agree - and the Founding Fathers.
you got all it takes to change that!
Fact is you don't know this "no-one". Therefore you don't know what "no-one" thinks, writes or speaks.
Maybe only no one from what you've met. World is alot bigger then what you've met, alot bigger then your own experiences and observations.
Health!
She argues it and she's right
Rights are NOT granted by govt nor by God, but are prerequisite principles that protect our ability to exist as humans in a social context. Humans are rational animals who must have their ability to think and choose protected in order to reason (our only means to knowledge) and thus to preserve our humanity (our ability to choose and to thus make use of our own mind). It is only individuals that can choose to reason, and it is only individuals who experience happiness. Not the collective. A society has as constituents, individuals.
People pretend that rights are such a complicated concept, but they're really quite simple. What makes things difficult is when you approach everything with the presumption of the right to positive ends.
If you start with "the right to have", then rights are going to be a very elusive and contradictory idea for you. The idea that a positive end could be a primary right is against nature/the physical world. It can't exist and because it can't exist, it is through cognitive dissonance that those who perpetuate such an idea end up destroying rights each and every time they try to coerce positive ends into being.
rights are all actions that a man need to do in order to survive. such actions include see, hear, speak, eat, think, labor, own property, exchange/trade with others and etc.
Rights are actually a subset of property, which simply means that which is proper to man; that which he enjoys exclusive of all others in society. For example, a wife is the property of her husband, a husband is the property of his wife-both have entered into an consensual agreement by which they enjoy exclusive right to each other (assuming their marriage is traditional). Similarly, children are the property of their parents, who created them, and as such have the greatest claim on them.
There has been a concerted effort by govt over the last several decades to define children as property of the govt, for obvious reasons.
children are not properties of their parents. every life is an independent entity, property of nobody. child is under the custody of parent by an implicit contractual custodian agreement that the parent should take good care of the child. a parent that abuses a child can be stripped of such an implicit custodian agreement by a court. husband-wife relation is not mutual ownership at all. there are plenty of open marriage. hasband-wife relation is a mutually beneficial voltuntary companionship, which can be multi-lateral if agreed upon by all parties involved. i'm amazed that you have everything wrong while you also listen to ayn rand.
I brought it up as a point of interest, not to be argumentative.
Ayn Rand even said that "rights are the *property* of the individual." She went on further to explain that no govt, no institution could have rights, which is why a govt has no claim on a man's children. They are are his exlusive property. This is not to say a parent can abuse his own children, or that a govt cannot intervene to protect said child, for the child's own life is proper to him. The purpose of govt is to protect and secure property-rights, not to enslave its own creators.
If I'm mistaken, and property only refers to ownership, why are govt officials arguing that children are the "property" of the state or govt?
ruclips.net/video/5Dxf-HeM0vw/видео.html
The state doesn't empower individuals or parents, individuals empower the state. Sovereignty flows from us, not govt, which acts as our agent, or servant.
You're arguing for the enslavement of man by his own artificial creation.
The Matrix has you, Neo.
To see, hear, labor, own property, exchange/trade with others are all examples of our right to act freely, to use our own mind and will uncoerced by others. But "to eat" is not a right. The right to act freely protects our ability to *produce* and keep or trade our food and all the other values we need or want.
We can't have a right to something that has to be produced by others (food). Such a "right" would violate the food-producers right to act freely.
@@volition51 you don't understand my definition of "right"
Que aula!
Man must create to be worthy. Man, creating in his own right, is the true basis for all self-esteem. This authentic, earned self-esteem, gives rise to a joy and meaning of life, insofar as possible in duality. Human dignity, is neither a right nor a gift of birth. If this were true, dignity would have no meaning at all. To be sure, man earns his dignity by the way he comports himself throughout life. Currently, dignity and rights are falsely extorted, and applied to what is grossly undignified. In this, man can raise himself to a level higher than the angels, or fall to levels of discord found nowhere else in nature. This is the choice.
We don't do well on strength of character unless it involves acting soley in your own interests. A balance of power imposed from an outsider is essential for maintaining civility.
"Rights" arise before man gets into a social context. And it is the inalienable right to think
and act that gives rise to freedom of speech and freedom of action in any social context.
Man exercises his rights in and out of a social context. The only difference .... in a social
context his rights are made explicit. RIGHTS BEGIN WITH CONSCIOUSNESS and not just
when man gets into a social context. Morality and rights: they are corollaries ..... the one
implies the other. One may separate them for the purpose of context ... whether they are
implicit or explicit .... but so long as man thinks and acts ..... they are present and active.
Man takes his Politics with him everywhere as Man takes his Philosophy. A man can not
live without Philosophy. Politics is one of the 6 branches of Philosophy. Man is Political
even on a desert island .... especially when he has to deal with wild animals. With time on
his hands he can tame wild beasts to his Political views ... else its self-defense. Eat some
tame some, farm some.
Existence is Identity
Consciousness is Rational and Emotional Identification.
Man is the rational animal. But his emotions are both automatic- which is what gives rise
to, "A sense of Life", and emotions attach to all of man's concepts and percepts. Emotion
is omnipresent: one may be forgiven for ignoring there place in Philosophy for so long. Its
small wonder Romanticism has all but disappeared ..... ignored and suppressed.
Metaphysics
Emotional Consciousness
Epistemology
Ethics
Politics
Aesthetics.
Loenard Peikoff went in search of a DIM hypothesis, while EMOTIONS were staring him in
the face all that time. Conceptual integration is both rational and emotional ..... the reason
why it can be prone to errors. Ignoring/Suppressing emotion only makes matters worse. A
Sense of Life does not fade into the background. When rationality takes the lead ..... One's
Sense of Life becomes exalted.
What a waste of time to write all that mumbo-jumbo
@@mikeb5372
Too bad shorty, and ideas flying over the top of your head. Mental midget,
mental dwarf, mental case, mental as anything. Dwarfism and the ins and
outs of Mumbo-jumbo. All you're left with. I'm that good with words.
@@martinljubic84 Don't flatter yourself. That long winded mess you took entirely too much time to write is an egregious attempt at trying to come across as an intellectual but sadly just a display of simple-mindedness. I should keep my opinion to myself but nevertheless it's true
@@mikeb5372
You poor thing, suffering under a barrage of bird droppings. Mumbo jumbo is not my only talent.
At some point that mumbo-jumbo will get in ..... making me a fortune teller. Have you disproved
the one fundamental point I made: NO. A sentence or two would do it, would if you could ... defy
reality. Or are you just Ayn Rand's parrot? Squawks, squeaks or squeals are not good enough.
Your first "mumbo-jumbo" comment is a nothing burger: A ZERO. Had you actually treated my
comment as such, you would not have commented at all. But stepping in, requires you to prove
your point: and you did not. "Put up or shut up" .... as they say. Ayn Rand said as much. Pick your
battles. Midget covered in bird droppings now. I have logic down to "A is A." **What is true: you've said nothing.**
@@martinljubic84 No, I don't need to refute any point you made. I suspect you will do your own self analysis and learn something from it. I don't mind the name calling. The battle is not with me but reflecting on your own comments. You'll need to let go of the false sense of yourself and dig deeper. Saying A is A isn't the same as identifying what is actually A
3:00
Only people have rights, government has no rights, government only has authority granted to it through the people's consent to be governed. My question to the Ayn Rand Institute is- Is a fetus a human being? What is Objectivism's philosophy on abortion?
What if the men that have the caviar also want the bread?
They can trade some of their caviar for some bread.
Of government (9:04)
Yes. Certainly. LOL. 😂
But... how will he survive without food stamps?
life is not a right.! so how does a person feel entitled to anything from anyone.? Life owes us nothing.
The concept of the right to life means your life belongs to you and not to anyone else and not for the purposes of anyone else. Right to life is the core right from which all other rights are derived.
every man is an island... You're on your own... total individual isolation...
Sure, if they choose to be.
"the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"
A right is a social privilege that has been fought for, neogotiated or gifted to the reciepient, from those that control the given society. The only reason it might be seen as moral is because rights revolve around human necessity such as access to water, freedom of movement or speech etc.
For example, no animal has a right to water, it has to fight, negotiate or recieve as a gift that access to water from those that control or dominate supply. A ruminant animal may well be prevented from access to local water supplies by predators such as lions and only obtain equal access at times of stress when any animal finds it difficult to control the environment.
Rand would benefit here from Hohfeldian analysis. Governments have *powers* rather than rights. Power is the ability to *change rights* unilaterally. Agents of the government, e.g. police, also have powers. Powers are *delegated* by the people to a government, and from a government to its agents.
In order for all men to have bread. Some men must have caviar. Verus, No men should have facial until all men have bread. I am very, very skeptical that private charity would have been sufficient to prevent people from starving. 😉
Facial?
You can be as skeptical as you want but the reality is that welfare has certainly proven that it can't entirely prevent people from starving either
@@mikeb5372 I think that welfare has entirely stopped people in America from starving to death. It has not stopped people from not being hungry. But I do think it has lessened the hunger that people have. especially children have to endure.
Unbelievable that the right to equal outcomes is now added to this list of socialist rights/demands.
The same people who preach diversity, diverse ideals and desires and choices and therefore outcomes, also preach equity, equal outcomes for all these allegedly diverse people. As someone who loves real intellectual diversity, this frustrates me to no end.
Girl is very smart in terms of facts, reasoning, logic, objectivism. Still ... can sense a big lack on emotional intelligence and empathy on her part.
The week and the those victimizing themselves usually don't know and don't care much about facts and reason ... they just need to be loved or encouraged. Otherwise they tend to go wild. The relation parent-child eventually needs to turn in to an adult-adult relation ... dependance in to freedom.
Pity that some keep childish behaviors still death ... some become "parents" without becoming adults first. That's how in some cases the kids are more grownup then their "parents" ... imagine living that as a kid.
Fear is the root of all evil. Reason and fear can't coexist. Love and honesty can kill fear.
Love and honesty give birth to reason. Without reason the human being seems no different then any wild animal.
Suppose you had a child and that child was disabled. What then?
According to this philosophy, wouldn’t the child be at the mercy of the charity of its parents? This doesn’t seem like an attitude that would work in real life.
It did work for the whole human history. Some books even start with a story of a child being left at neighbour`s doors by parents
It didn't work for her, she ended up on social security and Medicare and was still receiving financial government assistance when she died.
Maria, Rand paid into S.S. why do you believe she was not entitled to what she paid for? That action was not an abuse of her theory, was it?
social security is a tax. most people will never see all the money they put into it. she is just recouping some of her money. one of the biggest pozi schemes, made holy by the god called government
This tired argument keeps popping up from people who don't think. If you're money is being forcefully taken from you and you have even a chance to get some of it back, it is not wrong or contradictory to do so even if working to end that system. Think of a mugger coming back to you the next day and offering your $20 back from the $100 taken. It's not contradictory to take the $20 while still condemning the act.
She would however be a hypocrite, speaking as she does while voluntarily supporting programs like Medicare and Social Security. Honestly, it's fine if you have arguments against Rand, but you have to make logical arguments. You do actually have to think a little.
Getting some return of the theft is a wrong? So then have you stopped "paying" all taxes?