[1-1] of 1

Posts from Louis A. Chitty, III, Long Beach, CA (via Columbia, SC)

Louis A. Chitty, III, Long Beach, CA (via Columbia, SC)Louis A. Chitty, III, Long Beach, CA (via Columbia, SC)
Louis A. Chitty, III, Long Beach, CA (via Columbia, SC)

Cal, What is "objective" about this statement? How do you measure, quantify or "objectivize" "society" or "moral law"? Rand's statement is meaningless, being self-contradictory on its face, for how can asserting or even acknowledging one's "rights" SUBORDINATE an individual -- much less a society -- to some undefined "moral law" [and whose morality would we be talking about, anyway]? Last time I heard, there was no universally-accepted morality. "Rights," by their very nature, are NOT subordinate, else they are not absolute. This comment, like much of Rand's writing, is pure jibberish and what I call abstruse "word poop," being totally devoid of coherent thought and meaning. One need proceed no farther than this one-liner statement itself. Think about it (I will paraphrase): 'Individual rights are the means by which individuals are made SUBSERVIENT TO (some undefined) moral law'. I don't think so.

Get a Quote-a-Day!

Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.