Replies

"1. Not every man is rational. In fact, the point of your original post was that lots of folks are irrational."

Yet, we must still grant that every human being has the CAPACITY to use his reason, should he CHOOSE to do so. Choice is essential in Objectivist ethics. Since man is a being of volitional consciousness, his most fundamental choice is to be aware or not, from which is derived the choice to think and to reason.

If a man chooses not to reason, a society must allow him to fail and suffer for his personal mistakes, but not to inflict force upon others and in any manner impede their rational pursuits.

"2. Not everyone can bring about the enjoyment of the fruits of his own labor. Children are dependent on their parents for many years. Some folks due to disease or accident are disabled and dependent on others."

I refer you to a brief account of Objectivism's philosophy on children and their status by psychologist Nathaniel Branden.

http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/que02.html

Children are not fully rational, but they do have vestiges of reason and the underlying means to become fully rational in the future. Hence, they possess rights to the extent of their rational capacity's maturity.

"3. Even if your premises (1 and 2) are granted, I don't see how your conclusion (every man has an immutable right to dispose of his own property as he sees fit) follows."

If my two points are granted, this means that the individual man is most fit to employ his property in his own self-interest (which Objectivism's ethical statement: every man is his own purpose and ultimate object of value) and should thus have the RIGHT to do so.

For a thorough introduction to selfishness as a moral value, see "Anthem" or "The Virtue of Selfishness."

For now, a brief commentary by Michael Miller on what happens when selfishness is NOT embraced should provide support for the argument:

http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/Nihilist_Mutants.html

Just as a FYI, you really really need to pick up a copy of Leviathan (Thomas Hobbes). It will show you why American values are not only compatible with religion, but could never have been conceived in the first place without it! It's not accidental, or through lack of argumentative ability on the part of the objectivist, that theories along those cannot stand up to even simple logical analysis.

Regarding my number 1 you write, "we must still grant that every human being has the CAPACITY to use his reason, should he CHOOSE to do so." I'll grant a modified 1.

1. Nearly all people have some capacity to reason.

Do you want to try to support a stronger claim?

Regarding my number 2 you write, "Children are not fully rational, but they do have vestiges of reason and the underlying means to become fully rational in the future. Hence, they possess rights to the extent of their rational capacity's maturity."

This misses my point entirely. I wasn't talking about the rationality of children, but the fact that children are dependent on others for their very survival, and hence for enjoying the fruits of their labor. I didn't say, but should have, that most people are dependent on others for enjoying the fruit of their labor. My labor is writing computer programs. Enjoying any benefit of this labor at all depends on an enormous and complex social environment. As just a minute example, without widespread reliable electic power, noone would have any interest in buying the product of my labor.

Once we get 1 and 2 sorted out, perhaps we can discuss what follows from these premises.