04-23-2017, 09:22 PM
I did not dispute that there are different definitions of rights. As I said, definitional fiat is every discussant's prerogative.
I disputed the underlying concept denoted by your particular usage of the term "rights" in relation to the statement you were making (namely, that the rights of those who abrogate the rights of others may themselves be abrogated). I know that Rand asserts that one's "rights" necessarily derive from the nature of man qua man. Thus, if, as you claim, she also tells us that one's "rights" are contingent upon one's not violating the "rights" of others, then she is being contradictorily equivocal. Those things cannot both be correct, regardless of what definition of "rights" one chooses. This was the point is was trying to make (albeit perhaps poorly).
If so, what's wrong with that?
Many of today's biggest and most intractable socio-political problems arise because the concept of "rights" is being much too widely construed.