I am open to civil debate. You seem an intelligent and civilized person. One thing I would ask, I would ask you to do me the courtesy of not banning me if you do not like what I say, but rather PM me if you do not like it and I will leave. Thank you. I sense I can trust you on that account.
I will be civil, but my responses may seem foreign to you.
And let me respond to your post in segments, as what you wrote is a mouthful.
First: >>So Rand noticed that indeed society acted as though Constitutional rights were non-existent and did indeed (through her Institutions of Church--and "groups" exercising coercion and public control)--act to make someones "need" a CLAIM. Now a mere claim of need is an obligation...something that may be forced, or in omission punished--so that it does indeed negate fundamental Constitutional rights. Now Rand defined the source of such rights somewhat differently that Jefferson and company but she simply ferreted out what they already knew
when she said that no mans need is a claim against my rights.>>
Koan: the sentence above is where the first problem I see arises in her thinking.
But first, just look at what she is saying there.
I do not even like the tone of it. Many non thinkers will grab on to that sentence to do bad things.
Secondly, just the first paragraph of your post is way over most peoples heads. Remember over half the people in the country cannot even wrap their mind around evolution, and over 80% are religious, and a large percentage of peopel do not even know which coast the Pacific ocean is on or how many continents there are.
Now here is my rebuttle: A man's need can be a claim against individual rights, if society so deems it. That is democracy. People have to stop at red lights, people cannot sell poison food, taxes must be paid for water and sewer, or the military if the majority decides.
Jefferson was talking about a king. |
