Law School Discussion

Who Has Good Civil Liberties and Constitutional Law Programs?

Re: Who Has Good Civil Liberties and Constitutional Law Programs?
« Reply #20 on: June 26, 2007, 01:24:13 PM »

Again though, in a war of all against all, what would happen? the strong individuals would destroy the weak individuals. it's only when the weak individuals collectivize themselves that they are able to overcome the stronger few, and it's only when individuals collectivize that law and right are established.

But in such a world it's not necessarily the creative or the free spirited who win.  It's the biggest, the strongest, the one with the most guns or the one with the most control over others to make them wield guns.  This, I don't think, is Rand's vision or mine.  Is it yours?

Well isn't it the ones with the guns that have the most freedom? If I have the gun and you don't then doesn't that make me free to do what I want while you're dependent upon me not shooting you? And with my freedom I can be creative, and not restricted by right or law.

Hank Rearden

  • *****
  • 8241
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: Who Has Good Civil Liberties and Constitutional Law Programs?
« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2007, 01:24:46 PM »


Again though, in a war of all against all, what would happen? the strong individuals would destroy the weak individuals. it's only when the weak individuals collectivize themselves that they are able to overcome the stronger few, and it's only when individuals collectivize that law and right are established.

I guess you'd call that irony then?  That individual rights can only be protected when collective steps are taken (usually by some government entity)?  

Re: Who Has Good Civil Liberties and Constitutional Law Programs?
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2007, 01:31:03 PM »


Again though, in a war of all against all, what would happen? the strong individuals would destroy the weak individuals. it's only when the weak individuals collectivize themselves that they are able to overcome the stronger few, and it's only when individuals collectivize that law and right are established.

I guess you'd call that irony then?  That individual rights can only be protected when collective steps are taken (usually by some government entity)?  

I suppose. The idea of "individual rights" is only recognizable in relation to a community. Who else but a community could ever establish rights? A man living alone on an island would not wake up oneday and say to himself that it'd be nice to be able to speak freely.