'Individual Rights: The Bridge Between Morality and Politics' by Onkar Ghate

"Individual Rights: The Bridge Between Morality and Politics"

The principle of “individual rights” forms a bridge between Rand’s moral theory and her political philosophy. If implemented as the basic principle of social organization, it enables us to subordinate might to right and to interact exclusively in voluntary relationships.

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION

EXPLORE ARI

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES

[gillesandfio]

"the enforcing of social conditions that enable individuals to pursue what is true and what is the awesome. Thank you!

[larsemilhermansson]

One of the best lectures from the Ayn Rand Institute.

[guilhermesilveira]

Individuals are units. Just individuals are rational.

[drstrangelove]

You're too willing to accept the claims that women are being sexually abused.

[SpacePatrollerLaser]

You are speaking about it from the point of view of a victim. What about as an initiator? Most persons have been on BOTH ends of the deal. when you are 16 or 17, you don't think of all of that. I didn't quit because I wasn't any good at it. I've never been taken out by only one person: and that only happened ONCE. When I was 14, I escaped and evaded 3 grown men in an open field with only tall grass for cover. Now the kicker I have sight in only one eye and at that time it was about 20/200

[SpacePatrollerLaser]

The closest I get to an abstract foundation of Libertarian is "The Principle of non-aggression". Now, if you hold to "A is A", how can you have a "principle" based on a negative? You have to either demonstrate the factual premises of your principle, which if it si founded on a negative, it is founded on the NON-existence of something, or you have to prove the concepts of your principles, which since your principle is founded on a negative, the concepts cannot be based on something that is true and therefore must be false. So you principle is based on a falsehood or something that does not exist. I dunno about you, but I'm getting a headache

[SpacePatrollerLaser]

I have another interpretation of the story of Ibrihim. Most persons take it way out of context. Human sacrifice was the going thing in 2000 BCE. What is significant is that this particular daity brough Abraham just to the edge and called it off. This menat the END of human sacrifice under this deity. Abraham did what any proper leader of that time would do. You might also read Dr. Julius Jaynes TH BICAMERAL MIND (a gross distortion of which is the "left-brain right-brain dominant" thing) His work very closely tracks Rand's "The Missing Link". As a lead-in let me reccomind from a 1983 issue of SCIENCE DIGEST, "Was EarlyMan Schizophrenic?"