Support The Bill of Rights

Most people are educated to some extent in the political practices of their government, its branches and laws, and know about some prominent past politicians. Few are conversant in political philosophy, however. This weakness can make them tools of authorities and dupes of propaganda. Shayne Wissler wants to remedy this with For Individual Rights: A Treatise on Human Relations. His book gives an explanation and theory of individual rights that can be understood by almost anyone.

The book is largely a modern recapitulation of classical liberal political theory. Its strength is that it does so in a manner understandable to modern Americans. The book relies on (and includes quotes from) classical liberal luminaries like Thomas Paine, Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, as well as modern thinkers like Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. ...

(...continued at Amazon)

As the author I would like to thank the reviewer for a detailed and well-intended review. I appreciate the fact that the reviewer has discerned my most basic purpose: to bring the reader's mind in closer contact with their own natural rights. In the world we live in, most people are alienated from their own self-sovereignty, and thus my primary purpose is increase awareness of the fact that one's rights flow from one's self, of what one's rights are, and why.

Regarding the idea that I'm actually a misguided anarchist, the fact is this: Anyone who believes in individual rights and truly means it is going to be called an anarchist by anarchists. So while I firmly reject the idea that I'm an anarchist, I take it as a compliment to be called one by an anarchist.

I disagree with the idea that natural rights should be based in any way on "human convention," however, implementations of rights-defending systems will predominantly be based partly on conventions.

The reviewer is quite correct that my analysis of the concept of justice needs further refinement. (Also see the errata section at the book's website).

Regarding "he denies that a right is a moral concept even though he stakes his whole thesis on interference being immoral" -- I did and still do deny that rights are a moral concept, while also holding that it is immoral to violate rights.

This is not a contradiction: It is also immoral to purposefully violate the rules of math when engineering a building for a customer, but that doesn't make the rules of math a "moral concept." This way of looking at it represents a radical departure from Rand's view, and is why I say that rights are "scientific-biological." For example, I would say that in a proper judicial process, a scientific procedure can be used to determine whether one party violated the rights of another, because to violate a right is to interfere with living action, and this is a biological/teleological determination. We use morality to decide that rights should be respected, but we should not use morality to decide what rights actually are.

To reiterate, individual rights are more akin to mathematics than to moral prescriptions; they are the mathematics of the legal realm. Morality dictates that they must be used in the legal realm, but not what they actually are.

The review seems to imply that my main strategy is electoral, but I primarily argue that what needs to be done is to "know your rights." Only when a significant number of people know their own natural rights can significant change occur.

Without question, the best contemporary book regarding individual rights and human relations in our present condition. So often, books and essays are published that are less explorations, and more diatribes in the current state of human affairs, failing to conclude or attempt to resolve the dilemma for which the book addresses.

I find Mr. Wissler does justice to those philosophers, such as Aristotle, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, and Martin Luther King, who proclaimed and recognized the natural rights of the individual. Mr. Wissler's writing style pulls you into the text, delivering a continuous flow of food-for-thought. The treatise is fascinating, informative, thought-provoking, and entertaining; moreover, the treatise is an insightful piece for any reader who is concerned and troubled with the current state of poltical affairs.

A must read for any individual looking to receive a deeper understanding of political philosophy in the context of today.

This is a concise, insightful book about rights and government. It presents a new theory of rights which, if adopted, will result in governments which really are of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Here is a passage I like (page 49): "Patriotism is not a blind and unquestioned devotion to one's nation of birth, nor is it an admiration for the chains one has bound around the necks of one's neighbors. Authentic patriotism is a deep reverence for heroic action aimed at jealously-guarded liberty and an admiration for the prosperity and happiness that results as a natural consequence."

Just finished the book a few days ago. Though some minor sections I may not come to the same conclusion on, overall it was a very engaging exploration on civilized interaction derived from a carefully selected set of premises introduced in the first chapter.

I appreciate Wissler's critique of modern governance that includes a road path for improvement through consistently logical steps. Unlike some other works in this area by other authors, Wissler does not demonize those in government per se, but sees our current maladies as a symptom of societies collective unscientific approach to the subject.

I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the field of human rights and civilized society (and I would also recommend everyone be interested in those fields ;)

-Rob.