Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society

"But the theory that rights come from God is hopeless. To begin with, there is no evidence for the existence of such a being, much less for the existence of rights that somehow emanate from his will. Whether one believes in God is beside the point here. Either way, the fact remains that there is no evidence for God’s existence, which is why it is supposed to be accepted on faith—in the absence of evidence. Rights in support of which there is no evidence are not rights but fantasies...

"...To say that rights come from God is to say that there is no evidence in support of their existence, that there is no basis for them in perceptual reality, that they are not rationally provable. This is not a sound theory of rights; it cannot serve as a solid foundation on which to advocate or defend liberty..." [Continued...]

Altruism: The Morality of Logical Fallacies

"Altruism holds that being moral consists in self-sacrificially serving others. Despite its self-destructive nature, altruism is accepted to some extent by almost everyone today. Of course, no one upholds it consistently—at least not for long. Rather, most people accept it as true—and then cheat on it.

"All religionists—Christians, Jews, and Muslims—are altruists. Their holy books demand it. All so-called “Secular Humanists”—Utilitarians, Postmodernists, and Egalitarians—are altruists. Their philosophies demand it.

"From the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim points of view..." [Continued]

The Perils of Altruism

This choice has been offered: either sacrifice* others to yourself, or sacrifice yourself to others. Now, which will you choose as your moral purpose? Which is more noble? Clearly, sacrificing others to yourself comes with the implicit, distasteful understanding that fraud or force is necessary because no one in their right mind would knowingly and voluntarily do that. Altruism rests on this foundation -- the alternative is worse.


Are the alternatives correct, though, or is it a false dichotomy? The choice as presented assumes that sacrifice is necessary. If you do not choose to sacrifice yourself to others, then you necessarily will be sacrificing others to yourself (or vice versa). But is that assumption correct? Is sacrifice a necessary part of the way men deal with one another? If not, does that suggest a third option: neither sacrificing yourself to others, nor others to yourself?


Changing tracks a bit, it stands to reason that life, in order to survive, feeds off of other life-forms -- from herbivores that eat grass to carnivores that eat herbivores, and everything in-between. That is the nature of life and nothing less will sustain it. None of the rules of life are arbitrary or whimsical -- it is the necessary consequence of one of the laws of nature: the law of identity -- A is A. A life-form is a particular type of entity, with particular characteristics and requirements. If any life-form were to act against -- i.e. contradict -- its requirements, then it would die. If a plant were to strangle its roots and shun light, it would wither and die. If an herbivore were to refuse to consume plants, it would die. If a carnivore were to refuse to consume herbivores, it would die.


With that in mind, it would be an error to assume that men deal with one another in the same manner as they deal with other classes of life-forms -- by consuming them. True, men deal with other classes of life-forms in this regard, but there is a key attribute that men possess which makes their interaction with each other different from all the rest -- their rational faculty.


Man’s mind allows him to produce the values, which his life requires. Man can organize plants in a manner which yields a thousand to a million times more produce than nature would otherwise produce. Man can organize animals in much the same way to create similar effects. Man can design and build machines to make his efforts ever more efficient. Man’s limit of achievement has continuously been broken by each new invention. Man, by his nature, is a producer of his own values. Where in any of this, is sacrifice necessary?

Since men are the creators of the objective values that man’s life requires, it is in man’s nature to deal with other men, not as exploiter or exploitee, but as traders. Each man possesses a value that they produced (with which they are willing to part) and trades it for another value (which they require more than the original) -- both men gain objective value which supports both of their lives. Where in any of this, is sacrifice necessary?

Remember, “If any life-form were to act against -- i.e. contradict -- its requirements, then it would die.” To assume that sacrifice is necessary when dealing with one another is to assume that the only means to acquire values, which your life requires, is by expropriating them from others -- this contradicts man’s requirement to produce and trade the objective values that his life requires. Figuring out how to grow food will sustain your life, killing others for the food they created will not -- what will happen when you run out of victims? Trading values that you do not require for those that you do will sustain your life, killing others who possess the values you need will not -- what will happen when you run out of victims? Those potential victims, if regarded as traders instead, can continue to produce the values you require, which will allow you the opportunity to trade (if you offer them a good value in return).


Since altruism’s foundation is based on the necessity of sacrifice, it too contradicts man’s requirements, and therefore, is a morality of death. What are those contradictions, you might ask. For starters, altruism is a contradiction in terms. Isn’t the person accepting the values, that you offer selflessly, selfish for accepting them? Selfishness goes against altruism and would be considered bad under those terms, right? Why would a moral standard require you to support its antithesis? Secondly, it contradicts man’s requirements. Don’t you require material values (food, water, cloths, shelter, etc.) to survive and live a fulfilling life? If you get those values from someone else, then you’d be bad, right? If you create them and consume them yourself, then you’d be bad for not sharing, right?


Why would a moral standard, if practiced consistently, guide you to self-destruction? The fact that men are alive today means they’ve breached the morality of altruism to some degree -- that leads to the perils of altruism: those who are noble die in its name and those who are alive owe their guilty lives to others.

The third option is far superior than the original two. It allows men to be set free from other men and allows them to live free on their own effort or any voluntary arrangements their hearts desire -- all this is accomplished without sacrifice.


*Note: I suppose it would be prudent to clearly identify what I mean by sacrifice. It is a type of trade which exchanges something of higher value for something of lower value. A $1 bill in exchange for $100 bill is not a sacrifice -- A $100 bill for $1 bill is. Going without food to feed your child is not a sacrifice -- taking the food out of your child’s mouth for another’s child is.

End Fractional-Reserve Banking: Part I

The Basics:

Law of Identity:  A is A

Law of Excluded Middle:  Anything is either A or non-A

Law of Contradiction:  Nothing can be both A and non-A at the same time in the same respect

Law of Causality:  The relationship between cause and effect

The Problem:

Fractional-reserve banking is a fraudulent process because it violates the law of contradiction.  Because it is a fraud it is incompatible with the free-market; therefore, free-market laws should prohibit such frauds and protect individuals from it.  Our whole financial system, however, is designed around concealing that fact and it’s designed around sustaining its operation besides.  The motive for maintaining this particular contradiction (as far as I can tell) is that there is a ton of money to be earned and because it’s lasted this long thus far (i.e., status quo).  It will soon be coming to an end, as most contradictions eventually do, one way or another; either by choice or by the implacability of reality rearing its head — I sincerely  hope for the former.

Why fractional-reserve banking is a fraud:

What is fractional-reserve banking?  Fractional-reserve banking is what allows banks to lend part of its deposits (AKA assets) while maintaining a small fraction (in this example 10%) in reserve; thus, the term “fractional-reserve banking”.  That doesn’t sound so bad, that is until one carries it out to its logical conclusion. 

Let’s say for the sake of argument that only $1000 exists in circulation, only one bank exists, and there is only one depositor (so far) at this bank, who deposited the existing $1000.  The bank can now lend $900 while maintaining $100 in reserve.  That $900 gets spent and then deposited back into the bank.  Because banks do not care about the source of their deposits, that $900 is counted as an asset.  The bank can now lend 90% of $900 while maintaining 10% in reserve.  That lent money gets spend, it’s deposited back into the bank, and it’s counted as an asset which the bank can now lend 90% of again.  This cycle can continue until the very last penny.  The result being that $1000 is in the reserve (the original $1000), $9000 is on the books as lent out, and $10,000 is on the books for deposits.  That should raise a few eyebrows, but it gets worse.

Here in lies the contradiction; that $1000 is claimed to be owned by several people.  People will spend their deposit as though they own it.  People will assume that their money exists in full.  Keep in mind that nothing can be A and non-A at the same time in the same respect – that would be a contradiction.  In this case, that $1000 belongs to the first depositor and not to the first depositor at the same time in the same respect — that is a contradiction.  Any one or all of its many owners may go the bank to claim “their” money — you better be the first one in line though because only $1000 exists.

---