Re: Rights

Terry Donaghe (
Thu, 14 Jan 1999 07:12:45 -0800 (PST)

---"Michael S. Lorrey" <> wrote:
> Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > > > So, Mr. "Macht macht recht"
> > >
> > > You joke about it, but actually "might makes right" can be
> > > taken quite literally. Rights without might are paper tigers.
> >
> > An argument I have found effective in communicating this point:
> > During the cold war, the USSR constitution included a guarantee
> > of free speech to all citizens, just as the US constitution does.
> > Why then was reality such that Americans had moderately free
> > speech and Soviets did not? Because in the US, the people with
> > the guns (cops, federal agencies, military, and many citizens)
> > /believed/ in a greater level of free speech than did the Soviets
> > (though still not very free by some measures).
> Using might to enforce rights is merely one possible manner of
> respect for natural rights. Since the right to defend oneself is a
> right, using force *as an individual* to defend one's rights is a
matter of
> natural law. Using force to deprive others of rights is against
natural law.
> This shows that while force is not objectively moral or immoral, it
can be
> used to either objectively moral or immoral ends. So you see, force
is merely
> a means to an end, not the end in and of itself. "It is the right that
> defends all other rights."
> Subjectivists try to deny that force follows from the natural right to
> defense, because they want to deny the existence of natural rights.
> scares me more than subjectivists in government positions, because
they are
> the ones who have the greatest potential to become tyrants.
> Mike Lorrey
Are there *ANY* non-subjectivists in government positions? An objectivist would probably die rather than take a job in our current "government".

Terry Donaghe:

My Homepage: <> - Recently Updated!!

Also: <> - See the REAL dancing baby

Visit The Millennium Bookshelf: <> Prepare yourself for the next age of mankind!

Get your free address at