The Rational Egoist

President Bush states his personal beliefs on marriage.

The current debate over whether or not gay marriages should be legal provides major insight into one of the biggest problems in modern politics today: the complete failure to recognize individual rights.

As Ayn Rand demonstrated in The Virtue of Selfishness, “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 complusion, coercion, or interference by other men. Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive–of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.”

As a result of this right, an individual has the right to choose whatever morality they want (by having the ability to use their own judgment) just so long as they do not violate the rights of others (i.e. force others to follow the morality that they themselves choose). In our modern society however, this right is widely ignored. The latest example of this can be seen with the current debate as to whether or not gay people should be allowed to be married. According to the principles of a free society, these gay people have the full right to choose to be gay and to choose to engage in various relations with whomever they choose regardless of what percentage of the society thinks such actions are immoral. In a free society, an individual’s right to his own life can not be voted away by any group, whether it be a group of citizens or an act of Congress. However in our society, we see many individuals’ rights being voted away constantly, which includes calls from prominent politicians such as Bill Frist, to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.

This is a clear attack on the individual rights of EACH AND EVERY citizen of the United States. Taking away the individual rights of some citizens necessarily leads to the taking away of the individual rights of all citizens, unless the premises by which these decisions are made are checked. Taking away an individual’s right to his own life is an either/or situation. Either an individual has the right to his own life: to be free from physical compulsion and be free to rely on one’s own independent judgment; or they do not. But most importantly, an attack on the individual rights of any citizen is an attack on the human mind. It prohibits a human being from fully exercising their own judgment, by prohibiting the full use of that which is required for one’s survival. As Ayn Rand said, “The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A–and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.”

Politicians such as Bill Frist want to take away the individual’s right to choose to be gay or not, to choose to be married with a gay person or not, to use one’s own mind. He wants to impose his own personal morality (that homosexuality is evil) and FORCE others to accept this. Whether or not I believe homosexuality to be evil or not is irrelevant.

I hold that every individual has the right to choose their own principles, values, and character, regardless of whether or not a majority of people agree; just as long as that individual does not violate the rights of others to do the same. A man has the right to choose to be gay and a woman has the right to choose to be gay, just as a businessman has the right to choose to do business with those who choose to voluntarily trade with him, just as an individual has the right to be Catholic, Jewish, or Atheist, etc., just as an individual has the right to choose to become a teacher, a lawyer, a doctor, a businessman, etc.

There is and never will be any justification for forcing another individual or group of individuals from using their own independent judgment, even if what they conclude is not favorable by a majority of people.

I condemn Bill Frist, and all other politicians like him. I condemn all politicians who attempt (and who have succeded) in taking away the right of every individual to use their own independent judgment to reach their own conclusions.