Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
In 1780, John Adams succinctly defined the principle of the Rule of Law in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men”. This reflects the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution’s preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The very foundation of our legal system says that the law should work for us all, not just a select few.
This raises the question of what is a good law that serves the majority of society and what is a bad law that doesn’t serve the majority of society?
This idea is further bolstered by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The latter addition of the 14th Amendment as well as the Preamble of the Constitution both reflect the spirit in which this country was founded as set forth in the Declaration of Independence: “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Clearly, the pursuit of the Rule of Law under the Constitution as informed by the Declaration is a pursuit of the Utilitarian concept of the right course of action is the one that maximizes the overall good consequences of an action; what is in the best interest of greatest numbers of We the People is in the best interests of the country.
Utilitarianism is a quantitative and reductionist philosophical form. Utilitarianism, however, is not a unified philosophical view. It comes in different flavors with the two primary flavors being Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism. Strong Rule Utilitarianism is an absolutist philosophical view and rules may never be broken. Like any absolutist view does not take into account that reality occasionally presents situations where breaking a rule results in the greater good. For example, the strong reductionist rule that murder is bad is countered by the exceptional example of murder is not bad if performed in self-defense or the defense of others. This result of practical application is reflected in what John Stuart Mill called Weak Rule Utilitarianism. It becomes apparent that since not all rules are absolutely enforceable when seeking the common good and exceptional circumstances require flexibility in the law, that the Utilitarian pursuit of the Rule of Law must be in Mill’s Weak Rule formulation of Utilitarianism. But is considering the greater good and circumstantial reasons for breaking or modifying rules the best way to judge whether a law is good or bad?
If one considers Kant’s Categorical Imperative – “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” – then any law not universally applicable should not be a maxim worthy of being recognized as universal. This is contrary to Utilitarianism in general as well as Weak Rule Utilitarianism specifically, but while Kant’s view takes subjectivity into account when dealing with circumstances it does not take into account that there can be objective differences in circumstances as well. It is part of the judiciaries role as a trier of fact to consider not only subjective differences but objective differences in circumstances in formulating the most equitable and just solution to a case at bar. In seeking to be universally applicable in defining maxims, Kant is an absolutist as surely as Strong Rule Utilitarians are absolutists. As a consequence of reality not being neatly binary in nature and thus not often compatible to absolutists approaches to formulating laws for practical application, what can be done to keep Weak Rule Utilitarianism from degenerating into Act Utilitarianism where actors will seek the greatest personal pleasure when presented with a choice rather than the greater good? Utilitarianism conflicting with the Categorical Imperative? Is there a unitary philosophical approach to evaluating whether a law is good or bad?
The answer seems to be no. If there is no single view, absolutist or otherwise, that leads to a practical system for evaluating whether a law is good or bad, then there is only one option for building a framework for evaluation. That option is synthesis.
Consider that absolutist systems as they are not applicable in reality should be confined to being considered theoretical boundaries rather than practical boundaries. This does not negate the value of considering systems like Strong Rule Utilitarianism or Kant’s Categorical Imperative, but rather puts them in the place of aspirational goals rather than practically attainable goals in every circumstance. Given that Mill’s Weak Rule Utilitarianism can degrade into Act Utilitarianism and that degeneration can be compounded by the number of exceptions there are to a rule, are there ways to minimize the defects of using only Weak Rule Utilitarianism to determine the societal value of a law? What supplements can be made to that framework?
I submit that one such supplement is found in the form of Negative Utilitarianism. Negative Utilitarianism is exactly what it sounds like; the inverse function of Utilitarianism. Whereas Utilitarianism is the basic proposition that the right course of action is the one that maximizes the overall good consequences of an action, Negative Utilitarianism is the basic proposition that requires us to promote the least amount of evil or harm, or to prevent the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest number. If one takes both into account in evaluation of the social value of a law (a synthetic approach), the test becomes a balancing act. On one side of the scale is the societal value of overall good consequences, on the other side is the societal value of preventing overall harm. This proposition suggests the following framework for evaluation of whether a law is good or bad.
- How many people benefit from the good consequences of a law?
- How many people benefit from the reduction of harm as consequences of a law?
- Does the benefits from promoting good consequences outweigh the costs of reduction of harm?
- Does the benefits from reducing harm outweigh the costs to the greater good in taking no action?
- Are the net consequences of a law perfectly knowable from either perspective or does the possibility of unforeseeable consequences exist? Can the unforeseeable risks be minimized either by construction of the law(s) to allow for contingencies or by regulating other risks or contributing factors?
- Do solutions from either perspective negatively impact human and/or civil rights? Do those negative impacts outweigh the positive effects to the greater human and/or civil rights of all?
This is but one way to evaluate whether a law is good or bad for society. What are other methods? Are there ways to improve this method? What do you think?
kderosa:
you might enjoy reading the following ideas:
“Isn’t that the root of every despicable action? Not selfishness, but precisely the absence of a self. Look at them. The man who cheats and lies, but preserves a respectable front. He knows himself to be dishonest, but others think he’s honest and he derives his self-respect from that, second-hand. The man who takes credit for an achievement which is not his own. He knows himself to be mediocre, but he’s great in the eyes of others. The frustrated wretch who professes love for the inferior and clings to those less endowed, in order to establish his own superiority by comparison . . . . They’re second-handers . . . .
They have no concern for facts, ideas, work. They’re concerned only with people. They don’t ask: “Is this true?” They ask: “Is this what others think is true?” Not to judge, but to repeat. Not to do, but to give the impression of doing. Not creation, but show. Not ability, but friendship. Not merit, but pull. What would happen to the world without those who do, think, work, produce? Those are the egoists. You don’t think through another’s brain and you don’t work through another’s hands. When you suspend your faculty of independent judgment, you suspend consciousness. To stop consciousness is to stop life. Second-handers have no sense of reality. Their reality is not within them, but somewhere in that space which divides one human body from another. Not an entity, but a relation—anchored to nothing. That’s the emptiness I couldn’t understand in people. That’s what stopped me whenever I faced a committee. Men without an ego. Opinion without a rational process. Motion without brakes or motor. Power without responsibility. The second-hander acts, but the source of his actions is scattered in every other living person. It’s everywhere and nowhere and you can’t reason with him. He’s not open to reason.”
Mike Spindell:
“Then I read the book and began to wonder how an Architecture critic could bring a powerful Hearst
like publisher to his knees. something didn’t compute.”
You mean like a reporter hacking phones and bringing a Hearst like publisher to his knees? Like life imitating art and vice versa?
Sometimes I wonder why conservatives are not in the drivers seat and then I remember what Ayn Rand said about the will to power:
“A mystic is driven by the urge to impress, to cheat, to flatter, to deceive, to force that omnipotent consciousness of others. “They” are his only key to reality, he feels that he cannot exist save by harnessing their mysterious power and extorting their unaccountable consent. “They” are his only means of perception and, like a blind man who depends on the sight of a dog, he feels he must leash them in order to live. To control the consciousness of others becomes his only passion; power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind.
Every dictator is a mystic, and every mystic is a potential dictator. A mystic craves obedience from men, not their agreement. He wants them to surrender their consciousness to his assertions, his edicts, his wishes, his whims—as his consciousness is surrendered to theirs. He wants to deal with men by means of faith and force—he finds no satisfaction in their consent if he must earn it by means of facts and reason. Reason is the enemy he dreads and, simultaneously, considers precarious; reason, to him, is a means of deception; he feels that men possess some power more potent than reason—and only their causeless belief or their forced obedience can give him a sense of security, a proof that he has gained control of the mystic endowment he lacked. His lust is to command, not to convince: conviction requires an act of independence and rests on the absolute of an objective reality. What he seeks is power over reality and over men’s means of perceiving it, their mind, the power to interpose his will between existence and consciousness, as if, by agreeing to fake the reality he orders them to fake, men would, in fact, create it.”
It is because they have better things to do like make money and worry about their own lives.
@Gene H: First, thanks for the lengthy post. My post to Gyges was before I realized you had answered. I have spent my alloted morning time on an answer to your post without completing the answer; so I will carve out more time to complete it shortly.
@Gyges: “I’m curious as to what you think the impact of Mike S’s additions would be to your hypothetical.To me, that’d be the key, could an unbiased observer really say “getting rid of that 2% is demonstrably better for that 98%?”
I am not sure what additions you are referring to; but the real key is how is harm defined? Some people believe with all their heart that a girl losing her virginity outside of marriage ruins both her own life and theirs. This is what honor killings are about, and girls really are being murdered by their parents because of it.
As for having the same rules apply to themselves: The same rules DID apply to them, when they were virginal, and they obeyed them.
An “unbiased observer” cannot be bereft of knowledge, culture, and logic, otherwise they will have no judgment. In my example, the 2% are atheists, the 98% are devout religionists. It might really BE better for them to kill us, if our views are agitating them and causing that much fear.
I think the tough nut of deciding a good law in deciding what is a good civil right; not in the common good. A few civil rights I think are fairly simple, but I think should be viewed as being conditional: You have the right to life, but forfeit it if you violate somebody else’s right to life. You have the right to freedom and property, but can forfeit both if you violate somebody else’s right to their freedom or property. Your rights are not, as the founders claimed, “unalienable,” and even they did not believe that. They executed people, they imprisoned people.
I guess I believe in the rule of fairness; or egalitarianism. Fairness is an inherent calculation built into our brains since our early ape ancestry; it is observable in monkeys with brains the size of a woman’s fist.
By that principle, I believe we must all begin life with identical rights (or identical potential, for age-delayed rights like voting), and that is more important than the specific rights we devise. I believe a similar thing about laws made for the common good: My goal would not be to strive for the greatest good for the greatest people, I think that is a false target, and risks harming a minority for the benefit of a majority. I believe in programs that plausibly benefit everybody equally, whether they favored the program or not. A good system of roads, schools, medical care, old age care, defense, research, police, courts, waste and sewage disposal, and other protections benefit even the fools that hate paying for them.
By that principle, civil rights should not favor any definable group over any other; they must apply to everybody and create no privileged group.
Tony C.,
“I do not believe negative utilitarianism corrects the defect.”
Nor do I. I also don’t think the Founders were Utilitarians either, but rather in one camp or other of Rule Utilitarianism. Mostly in the Weak Rule camp as this is evidenced by creating a judiciary with flexibility in outcomes rather than a judiciary as rote rule functionaries. What is key to realize and most important to making Weak Rule Utilitarianism work in conjunction with Negative Utilitarianism is to consider the rules initially set as the parameters of the system. In the case of the Constitution and the Declaration, these parameters include both human and civil rights (the distinction is important) based upon Secular Humanism (which rejects all dogmatic and absolutist moral/ethical systems).
These parameters include the “truths self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” found in the Declaration which are a combination of both human and civil rights and the civil rights found in the Bill of Rights as bolstered by that later addition of the 14th Amendment as a further guarantee of egalitarianism espoused in the Preamble’s notion that this is to be a government of the People – not just some, but rather all of the people.
I agree that not all outcomes are foreseeable but concurrently I also think that not all circumstances are foreseeable either. That is why the flexibility of Weak Rule Utilitarianism works as a basis for an analytical framework; it’s inherently flexible. Absolutism allows for neither unforeseen circumstance nor effect. It is a rigid form of thought. This is why I was careful to point out that absolutist systems are incompatible with formulation of a framework for deciding what makes a good law or a bad law. What that absolutist system is is ultimately irrelevant because it’s rigid nature precludes it from being a good tool for this job at the outset. It makes no difference that the absolutist system Strong Rule Utilitarianism, Kantian Categorical Imperative reasoning, or the more religiously dogmatic absolute systems of Fundamentalist forms of Christianity and Islam (both of which recognize the need for ethical behavior in society, but think that only God or Allah can be the arbiter of what is ethical), or Objectivism*.
Since a good law must be minimally intrusive on a human or civil right, that brings use roundabout to your question of what makes a good civil right, but first we must stop and look at the distinctions between human and civil rights to clarify. Let’s start with the idea that human rights have the most universal application and are more closely bound with the inherent state of existence than with the civil rights which are codified into law as part of the social contract. Inevitably entering into the social contract of a society requires some sacrifices of rights to provide both punishments for what actions are defined as crimes and for the sake of equity in civil courts. This is the simple pragmatics of the matter. The pinnacle of human rights is the right to live, yet we as a society have deemed that some crimes merit taking away that right. Just so, there is a civil right to property, but that right is not absolute if you have used or misused your property in such a way as to bring harm to others. In those instances equity demands that you loose those property rights to another or through liquidation to pay for monetary damages in the attempt to make the victim as whole again as possible. It is this very intrusion upon rights to create justice that mandates flexibility in the evaluation of what constitutes a good law. Justice requires some flexibility in forming equitable outcomes, therefor a flexible philosophical framework is required to judge the social utility of laws.
Human rights have less flexibility with respect to being curtailed than civil rights as civil rights can be solely defined by social agreement. This is not to say that the two cannot overlap. In American jurisprudence they most certainly do. Consider the idea (evolved from the works of Hume, Smith, Mills, Weber and Rawls) that certain kinds of rights are indivisible. Free human beings enjoying civil and political freedoms (freedom from fear, forced religion and want) can only achieve those freedoms if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy not just civil and political rights, but social, economic and cultural rights as well. Although I’ll take them out of order, let’s revisit mespo’s précis of what he thinks makes a good law as his list nicely touches upon not only what makes a good law, but points to what makes a good civil right as well:
1. addresses a need;
2. is readily understood in purpose and in operation;
3. conforms to our principles;
4. enjoys overwhelming support;
5. affects and protects everyone;
6. and reflects what is best about us — not what is worst
To point 5 – To the extent that human and civil rights are overlapping and indivisible, it would appear that the first step in defining a good civil right is to ask the question: Does the civil right affect and/or protect everyone? If the answer is “yes”, then not only have you taken a step at defining a good civil right, but a good law as well. Is it egalitarian in construction and equal in application?
To points 1, 3 & 6 – The second question of what makes a good civil right is does it address a need? In the case of a civil right, does it address either a human right or civil right that is important to the values upon which society was founded? In the case of a good law, does it address a valuable need for society (which in the case of American law is found in the Preamble’s “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”)?
To point 4 – We are supposed to be democratic representative republic in form by the construction of the Constitution. That the law enjoy broad public support is a must. Unfortunately, today we see many bad laws that don’t enjoy broad public support but rather reflect the narrow dictates of special interests, but that is an issue for a thread discussion either campaign finance or voting reform. I only raise it here to illustrate that laws unpopular with the majority are often bad laws with narrow focus.
To point 6 – What is the best of us? It’s those principles found in the Declaration and Constitution that strengthen us all like the promotion of justice (which requires maximum equity with minimum intrusion upon rights both human and civil), the keeping of the peace (not to be confused with the repression, oppression and increasing criminalization of society), providing for our mutual defense from both foreign enemies and from the criminal, psychotic and sociopaths among us, and doing our best to ensure that our laws – as part of the pursuit of both justice and liberty – promote maximum liberty as balanced against maximum social utility that may require justice and peace to impinge upon those liberties.
To point 2 – I submit that is a drafting criteria. Laws should be as simple as possible. It creates less room for error and less room for abuse if exceptions are kept to a minimum (although they are pragmatically required for justice). For example, most laws governing the crime of murder are straight forward with the exceptions and affirmative defenses clearly spelled out. For a counter-example, our personal income tax code is a joke. It’s so complicated that it requires specialists and so full of abusive and inequitable loopholes that it’s practically non-functional. But a sliding scale flat tax code could be written that is just, fair, understandable by an eight year old and fits on one or two pages instead of the literally volumes of tax laws we have now. While some complicated subjects may require complicated laws, those that don’t, should be as simple as possible.
Human rights, like the right to live free of forced religion, can be made to be fairly untouchable by the proper construction of law such as the 1st Amendment. Although its ability to keep a separation of church and state has been challenged over the years by those who would use the power of law to compel others to act in accordance to their beliefs, the 1st Amendment provides a fine example of a good civil right that can be protected in such a way to make infringing upon it extremely difficult if not impossible. Free Exercise is an example of human/civil right that is for all practical purposes inviolate in the Constitution. The only restraints against it for practical purposes are those deemed by society as necessary for keeping the peace (such as not allowing human sacrifice) although it can be argued that some restraints on religious practice while arguably about maintaining order are actually unjust (the prohibition of naturally occurring psychedelics as is part of some religious traditions). Civil rights, like the right to own property, are more mutable and must be in order to allow equitable solutions to civil wrongs. Some rights where there is overlap between a more universal human right and a civil right like the 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments are often where the most difficult analysis lays. The right to be free of cruel and unusual punishments represents not just a human right, but because it was incorporated into the Constitution, it represents the best of us in seeking to a humane and just society. Any law that impinges upon that should be considered with the utmost and harshest scrutiny and rigorous ethical and scientific examination. That is part of what makes the Patriot Act so abhorrent. As an intelligence gathering tool, the science shows torture does not work. I won’t bother to connect the dots on why torture as a policy is not just bad law, but a violation of good civil rights that stand for the best of us. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that torture is about sadism and attempting to create fear. The problem with that is, as I pointed out to Mike Spindell in conversation about Theory X (management by fear) in business, that fear often creates more than just fear. It creates hatred and resentment and encourages retaliation.
So what makes a good civil right? I think we have a good template already in the Declaration and the Constitution. It needs some modernization and refinement, but it’s a good starting place. But what makes a good law? I submit taking into account the human and civil rights as defined by the Founders, applying a framework of Weak Rule Utilitarianism as constrained by the idea of maximizing those rights and analyzed in the light of Negative Utilitarianism is a good way to start answering that question. I hope this better addresses why I chose a synthetic approach left it open for the addition of “modular” considerations.
*********************
* As an aside, to any who might object that I’ve grouped Objectivism in with religions instead of legitimate philosophies, I am unconcerned with your objections. Despite pretending to be a philosophy, Objectivism is actually a pseudo-philosophy more akin to a religion built on the cult of personality both in its worship of Ayn Rand and appeals to the egos of its adherents. Objectivism has more in common with Scientology than it does with a legitimate yet absolutist (and therefor ultimately inapplicable) philosophy like Strong Rule Utilitarianism. If the “religious right” who have attempted to hijack this thread wish to speak about their Cult of Rand, feel free to do so, just realize that Objectivism has no more role in formulating a framework for the analysis of good law than Fundamentalist Christianity or Scientology does. Absolutist systems have no productive place in this discussion. This is the only time I will address the point of Objectivism as it relates to this topic.
NOWAY….
maybe you should triple up on the tinfoil, I didn’t realize the extent of the damage
KD,
Enough…Your momma is gonna get mad at you and not let you sleep with her tonight…..
Roco
1, July 18, 2011 at 9:06 pm
kderosa:
If you are using the word tardy as a contraction of retard, I ask that you not insult people like AY, iimplying that liberals are retarded is a great disservice to the mentally handicapped. And liberals I might add, it gives them gravitas.
I know from people who work with them [the mentally challenged] that they are decent, hard working individuals who want to work and be useful members of society.
So please could you call them [liberals] progs or libs or even socies?
*****************
Please define progs, and libs and even socies?
How is tardy a contraction of Retard?
How does implying liberal as retards give them gravitas? As gravitas literally means: weight, seriousness, dignity, or importance, and connotes a certain substance or depth of personality. Are you implying that people with special needs are not entitled to the same protection….
Now, here we go, you are relying on hear say….Are you too good to socialize or work with people who are different that you? You sound like proponent of Marx….that is ok, you have that right….Are you sure that you are not really a member of the National Workers Party…..from Germany…..
You put out so many different positions….on so many threads….are you sure you are not a circus worker….a contortionist….And I believe you are…so with all sincerity and with a straight face, please go do yourself….
@AY, I thought your tinfoil cap was supposed to stop these conspiracy theory voices of yours. Better double up, the waves are getting through again.
kderosa
1, July 18, 2011 at 9:39 pm
it was not my intention to bemirch the mentally challenged by comparing them with AY.
Ok, Now “W”, who is doing your Ghost Postings…..But you are fun to watch…snarking and all…lol
Bob,
I picked up Blood at the Dylan concert in about 1985….Good record….
Is it the ID, Super ID or the EGO that that is the Head Puppeteer…So who pulls the strings….or is it ….automated responses system….that does the voice overs….Just asking….For what you all collectively have put out there I am sure you are well over paid….a side benefit of your postings….you give this blawg greater exposure…as subject is included in all search engines…I am sure the professor is grateful for all that you have done…
Bob,
It’s on the “To do list.” I should get to it sometime in the next week or so.
Gyges,
I’ve never been a fan of aesthetics so I wouldn’t have much to say on that topic.
Anyway, I’m just about to turn in for the night, but I was wondering if you still wanted the original pressing of Blood On The Tracks.
If you got my email from you know who, then drop me a line and we’ll start figuring out how to do an ftp transfer using cute ftp.
Bob,
You know, I was reading a book full of essays on food and philosophy. The one thing that really bugged me was Kant came up quite a bit; Epicurus, once; and not a single mention of any Chinese philosophy that dealt with food, of which there is quite a bit.
Most of the essays were good, but the one about if food could be art was philosophy porn.
Why yes, this is a ploy to try and change the topic of conversation.
it was not my intention to bemirch the mentally challenged by comparing them with AY.
kderosa:
If you are using the word tardy as a contraction of retard, I ask that you not insult people like AY, iimplying that liberals are retarded is a great disservice to the mentally handicapped. And liberals I might add, it gives them gravitas.
I know from people who work with them [the mentally challenged] that they are decent, hard working individuals who want to work and be useful members of society.
So please could you call them [liberals] progs or libs or even socies?
Mike Spindell:
You really havent made any argument at all. Lots of your opinions, and I do appreciate you sharing those. But Martin Luther King and John Kennedy were actual predators.
An older woman having a mutually agreed upon affair with a younger man is passe. Of course she had feet of clay, she was a human being, a damn smart one though. And her ideas work in reality because she understood human nature.
Most people are selfish, that is what religion tries to brow beat out of them. What is wrong with wanting to live your life for your wife, your children and yourself? By what right can you or anyone else for that matter tell me I must pay for my neighbors sustenance? Where is it written? I dont see it in the Constitution or the Declaration.
We the people dont have a right to truss up I the individual like a cow and milk him for as much as we can get. The founders knew better than that and it is written everywhere by them, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Morris, et al believed in individual freedom and property rights of individuals.
And that statement I made? That is quintessential Rand, but you dont understand or cannot believe that she would think like that. Do you honestly believe she would say it was ok to pollute someones property with no consequence, or kill someone or steal their money?
we’ve been through this already, tardy, considering the source–you, your statement lacks any credibility.