First it must be recognized that rights are a matter of objective reality and can thus be understood and discussed rationally. Human rights are a fact of man's existence. Another man or government can attempt to deny a man's rights, but they do not cease to exist, they are only violated or suppressed.

A business is owned by men and men have the right to to think and to act - to make choices. This includes the right to discriminate against others. To deny this suggests that it is acceptable to force one man to serve another. Not only does this deny his right to think and act, it enslaves him and sacrifices his life to another.

Because legitimate government derives its power from men, government cannot do anything men cannot do, including initiating the use of force (or threat thereof) to prevent an individual from thinking and choosing as he sees fit. When government becomes illegitimate such as when it denies men their human rights, men have the moral right and obligation to change the government. Men also have an obligation to act morally regardless of the law, but must weigh the potential consequences of defiance in making such choices.

Who said anything about total anarchy? That's the trouble with left-liberals. They insist anything less than the kind of intrusive government they plump for, is tantamount to anarchy. And they fail to distinguish between police/military/law courts, all institutions that manage force, from other goods and services.

to apply a governor to action is to limit the action, in the same way that one may attempt to coerce behavior with laws. There is an important distinction here that is being missed. Notice the "proper role" of a law is to describe the consequence of a violation of an individuals rights versus "govern the behavior", or limit the behavior of men. This really isn't a false dichotomy, and I can see where you think its anarchistic, however that isn't actually the case.
In once sense we are making no limits on a man's actions. He is free to do as he chooses, but not avoid the consequences. In the other instance, we are trying to "govern" his behavior. He is not free to choose as he wishes and he may be free to avoid the consequences of his actions. Case in point. A 60 watt incandescent light bulb as of 2014 is an endangered species in the US. The goal there is to "govern" behavior by passing a law restricting the production or sale (I'm honestly not sure how they did what they did), and push folks into the "green" agenda, under the guise that its "for their own good" with the assumption that they are too stupid to know what's good for themselves." Forcing me to wear a seat belt is another one that governs behavior, or seeks to put limits on my behavior. Making laws that force me to work for people I'm ideologically opposed to is a way to "govern" my behavior. The reality in those situations is that not a one of them has any demonstrable violation of any individuals rights. The collectivist will argue that "global warming" necessitates that we use Compact Florescent lighting over incandescent because they are more energy efficient and global warming is killing the planet or pollution etc, but lets be honest, this is not "scientific" in foundation as you put it (we can argue on another thread about global warming if you like). Me not wearing a seat belt doesn't violate anyone else's rights And refusing to do work for anyone for any reason doesn't violate their rights either because they don't have a right to the product of my labor. But each of those laws is seeking to govern my behavior, just like passing a law that says I have to buy health insurance is trying to "govern" my behavior but who's rights am I violating if I don't buy health insurance? When we talk about laws that describe punishment for a violation of rights, such as murder, rape or arson, certainly some people may not do those things because they are afraid of the consequences, and you could say that those laws seek to "govern" those specific behaviors and you would be right, but what is the fundamental difference between Obamacare and Capital Murder? What is the difference between not wearing a seat belt and rape? What is the difference between limiting my choice of light bulbs and burning down a man's house? The fundamental difference is that in each of the later cases, there is a specific victim that was harmed. So yes, while all laws with a punishment have the potential to curb a man's actions due to consequences, not all laws are written to "govern" his behavior.

I may disagree with the intent. of the point made by Map but it has some merit as an argument and should not have been voted down. He may be making the Socrates assertion that if you accept laws you must take the good with the bad. But here, that is not the contention.

A law that denies a man his property, or life so that another man may benefit is not a moral law and should not be obeyed. Ayn Rand was adamant that Altruism be understood as evil and that man be a means in himself so that no man should be forced to exist for another man's sake. Maphesdus seems to miss this point in other threads I've posted as well when he thinks that the government or "groups" can legislate that someone must work for another man (even if compensated) against their will, and yet never speaks to the contradiction that one business owner has no right to determine how his business works, yet another business does in this context.

A law's proper application is to outline the consequence of a violation of individual rights, not to "govern the behavior of its citizens". If we accept your premise then we accept that the citizens behavior needs to be governed by a third party without limitations, or only with the limitations imposed by a majority vote. You can't say behavior needs to be governed without specifying the standard by which it is to be governed and how that standard is determined. This is the root of the argument/posts I've been making, which you fail to address. By what authority does a baker have to serve a gay couple when another business is able to deny employment for the very same beliefs? Why does one get to choose but the other doesn't? Its because the "group" has decided that when its concerning the interests of "this" particular group, an individual has no right to hold an opinion or belief and he should be "punished" if he does. By what right does the group get to deny this man his right to have a belief system? Who determined what belief systems were allowable? This flawed logic is the basis of moral relativism and all statism. The ends justify the means according to this thought process. The baker is wrong in his opinions, and Christianity is flawed therefore people shouldn't stick to those ideas and beliefs, its ok if we trample on their rights because in the end the fewer mystics we have the better we will all be. I reject this premise outright because its a flawed contradictory premise and the longer you promote it on an Objectivist board, the dumber you look.

Depends on context as well as content. Let's all remember the kid genius that felt he had no recourse than to commit suicide earlier this year after the draconian actions of the DOJ.

IP has been abused. Common sense in all things.

Does that mean no IP protection?

Txs khalling. I have no interest in anarchy, though I'm a strong advocate of severe libertarianism.

I misunderstood what you meant. It sounded like you were making a case for total anarchy.

I agree that total anarchy is not a practical or workable solution to societies as they are today. And I don't advocate such. I really think arguments against anarchy are straw-men used to argue against a return to the principles of the Constitution. I am firmly convinced that the Constitution imagined by the Founders is the ideal, though again it hasn't turned out to be practical either.

Our democratic system as practiced in this country is too fallible when faced with career politicians and the numbers of uneducated (some might say not educable) populace swayed by popularity, good looks, and bull-sh$t. Expanding the vote to those with no 'skin in the game' (welfare, non-working, non-property owners, etc) and limiting the numbers of Representatives (therefor decreasing the accountability of each to constituents) has transformed our Republican form of governance.

Personally, I also favor the strangely lost original 13th amendment favored by Thomas Jefferson.

We lost the only true method of federal restraint when we gave up state's rights during the Civil War and later when T. Roosevelt and then Wilson manipulated us into foreign wars and international entanglements. As well might be mentioned Andrew Jackson's extremes of Executive Power and refusal to follow the directions of the Supreme Court..

As for standing on a hill wielding an AR (I prefer the M14), remember that only 3% of the population of the Colonies beat the largest, most proficient military in the world. There was a German General invited to observe some Civil War actions, particularly Gettysburg that wrote back to his council and government after that battle that advised in the strongest words that his country should 'never try to fight these people.' I don't advocate war either, been there - done that. But as for trying to invade this country, the Northeast and California would fall pretty quick. The rest of the country outside the major urban centers, I wouldn't bet on. -

Will, I don 't think Zen was advocating anarchy. There is no need for the govt to legislate men 's thoughts and actions regarding a group 's perceived offense. Force does not include withholding your labor when you choose. Your "ARs on a hill " remark is a strawman. Until TSHTF the best offense is to work on winning the intellectual battle. It only often takes the tenacity of small but vocal minority to change the status quo

I am pretty sure he was referring to a properly restrained federal government in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. You know, one that provides for the national defense, the court system and the police, and nothing more? Our government’s function is to secure the rights of people from those who would take those rights away. This challenge is to be met by military force when the threat is foreign countries and by the court system when the threat is from an individual who does not value freedom or the virtue of the contract. Yes, liberalism and corruption has rotted the core out of the government, but that does not make anarchy the answer.

Total anarchy sounds fine to a lot of people that have lived their lives shielded from the things that go on in the rest of the world. Make no mistake; if our government completely collapsed tomorrow we would be dealing with invasion from every corner of the globe. You would not have to worry about criminals and roving gangs in that situation. The Chinese, Russians, Koreans, Mexicans, etc. would be the issue then… and standing on a hill dual wielding your AR’s would make no difference at all.

Thanks Zen.

>>"for without laws there would be no means of protecting your own rights or your own property, except of course your own violent and forceful action against any gang or criminal who sought to take your property or your life"<<

Does 'any gang or criminal' include the government? Do your laws give me a legal and non-violent method of seeking justice from the bureaucracy that permeates every pore of our society when they wrong me? Does a law that's 2600 pages long, that no single person can understand, protect me?

You seem to desire abdicating any responsibility for yourself, relying on a law to take care of you. That, my friend, is the epitome of slavery. Living in safety at the whim of your rulers.

I would much rather live in a raucous, free society than a peaceful, slave society.

No one, no group, no government, no special interest LGBT owns me, my mind, my business, or my voice.