Reason Writers on Freedom Watch: Matt Welch Talks with Judge Napolitano About Post-Tucson Proposals to Limit Liberties

On Friday, January 14, Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch appeared on Freedom Watch With Judge Napolitano to talk about various public policy proposals in the wake of Jared Loughner's Tucson rampage:

Comments

[Hutaree Milita]

we demand 100 round drum mags…for self-defense

[OO]

herp derp hurrp

[Name Nomad]

I wish every time an oldster plowed his giant Cadillac into a farmer’s market, the media questioned how such a person was able to get a car, be allowed by the government to drive the car, whether such large cars are needed, etc.

[OhioOrrin]

over a certain age should be fully tested every year.

[Pip]

^^Useless Cunt^^

[OhioOrrin]

propeller pip spins again

[Trig]

Watch me and learn.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

Unfortunately I can’t watch the video right now. I’m sure it would be a good counterpoint to the babbling I’m hearing from the usual suspects “we have to balance liberty and security blah blah blah” based on the phony premise that liberty and security are polar opposites that can be “balanced”.

[Matt Welch Makes Me Sleepy]

The judge sleepy.

[ed]

Sheesh, Matt. The Judge sets you up with the idea that rights derive from natural law, and asks you how and why liberals think health care is a “right”, and the best you can do is blame it on FDR? I am very disappointed. Here’s a tip from Ayn Rand. Feel free to steal it:

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action?which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.) The concept of a “right” pertains only to action?specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

[jayb]

Rand had this odd utilitarian quirk about her that most prominently appears in her proposals on property law but it again is seen here. She mentions a “…for the support, for furtherence…”. Our natural rights stem from our simple existence, they require no justification.

*on property she claims ownership is best given to that who affected a given object more, whereas I would think most Libertarians would said the first claim is the best claim. id est – Does Microsoft own Windows or the head architect

[ed]

Our natural rights stem from our simple existence, they require no justification

Rand “justified” her premises exhaustively. This is hardly the place to prove it. I would suggest further research if you are truly interested in Rand’s take on the fundamental nature of man’s rights.

[jayb]

Right, and she can go on and on about say, protectionism, where we would agree, but when it comes to natural rights, the use of the term natural rights has the implication that they are. Period.

[Robert]

Our natural rights stem from our simple existence, they require no justification.

If that were the case, they really would be natural and we would actually have them. Obviously they do require justif’n, because we don’t have them and they sure ain’t natural!