Blog One: Man's Rights and Collectivized "Rights"

In Rand's article about "Man's Rights", she specifically says that she feels man's only true right is the right to be alive. It seems that she feels this way in coordination with the fact that life is something that people sustain themselves. She says that it is a man's right to own anything that he earns, and that someone that earns nothing should have fewer rights than someone who earns everything. Rand says, “The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” She elaborated on how she felt about the idea that one man's rights cannot interfere with another man's rights, and if they do then they are not truly rights. Rand says, "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.” A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort. Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness—not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy." There are ideas in Rand's essay about rights that I agree with, but others that I do not. She puts out the idea that every right is taken for granted, and that most things are not rights, but wants. She says that the only way to preserve all rights is to have a completely capitalist society. In a way, it seems that Rand is contradicting herself in the first article by saying that life is the only fundamental right and that the eight rights she listed should be given regardless, and then explaining the idea that everyone should earn their rights instead of expecting to receive them. "The term “individual rights” is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them. Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man’s rights."

In Rand's essay about "Collective Rights", she says "Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression “individual rights” is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in today’s intellectual chaos). But the expression “collective rights” is a contradiction in terms." That idea was portrayed in the article about individual rights, but it is now used to make a different point. She seems to be strongly opposed to the existence of rights for a society, because the society is pretty much deciding what they want to do. Rand seems to think that anyone who believes that a group can have rights is uncivil, or ignorant. She says, "A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob. Any doctrine of group activities that does not recognize individual rights is a doctrine of mob rule or legalized lynching." While supporting the theory that groups cannot have rights, she also makes clear the point that nation's rights can differ with the rights of the individuals of the nation. It almost seems as if she is contradicting herself again, but it could just be a play on words. She talks about how nations decide on their government; is not that a national right? "Observe the double standard: while, in the civilized countries of the West, the “liberals” are still advocating internationalism and global self- sacrifice—the savage tribes of Asia and Africa are granted the sovereign “right” to slaughter one another in racial warfare. Mankind is reverting to a pre-industrial, prehistorical view of society: to racial collectivism.Such is the logical result and climax of the “liberals’ ” moral collapse which began when, as a prelude to the collectivization of property, they accepted the collectivization of rights. Their own confession of guilt lies in their terminology. Why do they use the word “rights” to denote the things they are advocating? Why don’t they preach what they practice? Why don’t they name it openly and attempt to justify it, if they can? The answer is obvious."

The two essays that Rand wrote correspond in various ways, and they are both very thoughtful opinions. Although I may not agree with certain ideas she stated, that does not take away her right to express them, or my right to respond to them. She says that individuals' rights can only truly be obtained in a capitalistic society, even though society has no rights. She has many points, but she constantly contradicts herself. She says that society achieves what society aims for, and the people that make up the society are mere individuals (who of course obtain their own rights). She makes it clear that she would rather be under a capitalistic society than a collective government. Some of the major things that tie into her writing revolve around the different types of societies, and what rights are allowed within them. Her opinions have changed my own about rights, and the impact that certain thoughts may have on other's rights. She talks about her belief that society is, and should be, controlled by rights, and how certain rights impact the way a society works. Some of her ideas and opinions are brilliant, but others are slightly redundant.