Delegating the right of self-defence

[Godless Capitalist]

I am not proposing competition in the use of force. I am proposing a system of objective laws as Rand proposes, with everyone having to follow those laws. The "competition" issue only comes up if different groups are trying to enforce diffeerent laws in the same jurisdiction. What I am suggesting is that private citizens be allowed to do the same types of things that police officers and judges do, and with the same types of corrective mechanisms that exist for police officers and judges. For example, if a police officer beats a suspect or plants evidence, or if a judge misapplies the law, the suspect can appeal to higher levels of the system for correction of the injustice.

I understand why a third party will usually be more objective, but that is purely a practical argument and does not justify the absolute monopoly on retaliatory force that Rand proposes.

What to do if you disagree with the judgement of the 'rational' govt is a good question. Judging from the schisms in the Objectivist movement, this might be a real problem for an Objectivist society. If the disagreement was minor and due to a legitimate difficulty in how to apply principles in a particular case, I would work within the system to try to change the laws. If I thought that the government judgement was significantly irrational, I would probably still submit to it for purely practical reasons, as we must in today's society. But then we are no longer talking about the original situation ...

[RadCap]

I have continually pointed out to you - and you do NOT dispute - that you agree that it is not only "practical" but "proper" to delegate (and submit) to a govt monopoly on law MAKING and AJUDICATION. I have CONTINUALLY asked you WHY that is proper and have NOT GOTTEN ONE ANSWER about that question. You instead keep going back to the ENFORCEMENT of law and how the arguments presented are 'merely practical' (as opposed to what btw? - are you claiming they are NOT the MEANS of enacting a PROPER principle? If so, please state HOW they are DIVORCED from principle, as you IMPLY but never explain).

The point is, BEFORE you can say why the delegation of ENFORCEMENT is proper or improper, you must FIRST say why ANY delegation is "proper" and not just "practical". As I have stated multiple times now, you KEEP IGNORING the fact that you accept WITHOUT apparent reason (at least one you are willing to state) the monopoly of the judicial and the legislative but DEMAND a reason for enforcement. I KEEP telling you that the answer to the first IS the answser to the second (if it is not, then you must EXPLAIN WHY the principle of delegation is proper in the first instances but NOT in the second - ie why it is proper to delegate legislative and judicial decision-making but NOT enforcement)

I don't know how to put this more simply to you. It appears you have a mental block in understanding this which I am unable to break through.

--

(Read the rest below, but do NOT post a reply to it UNLESS you fully answer the above FIRST)

As to your claim about competition, it is INCORRECT. Competition does NOT exist ONLY if different laws are being enforced by different groups. YOU are competing with police officers in your example. And in fact, according to your principle, EVERY citizen would be competing with every OTHER citizen to enforce HIS particular understanding of the law (understanding which can be SEVERELY limited). Such a competition is NOT conducive to the DEFENSE of rights at ALL. And it relegates the ENSURANCE that force is used both in proper MANNER and in proper CIRCUMSTANCE to AFTER the force has been used ie - it leaves it to a court to determine AFTER the fact - in other words WHEN IT IS TOO LATE. The point of OBJECTIVE control is NOT just to PUNISH initiations of force but to PREVENT them as well. You keep calling the MEANS of PREVENTION 'merely practical'. They are indeed QUITE practical. And they ARE practical (ie proper and effective) because they proceed from a PROPER (ie in accord with reality) PRINCIPLE - that of placing the use of force under OBJECTIVE control (which means PROSCRIBING who, what, when, where, how, why, in what manner, etc etc etc etc etc ad nauseum) force may be used. The average individual simply CANNOT know all of these things. It is simply impossible. It requires specialized study, training, and also requires access to the appropriate services and facilities (this is why we have numerous departments in a police squad - and why there are different branches of police agencies (local, state and federal) each with different departments. It is why we have separate divisions of the judicial as well - that of policing, of detention, etc) It is because the use of force is *properly* SO proscribed and SO delimited that ONE person CANNOT know it all. Therefore, the average citizen like yourself simply running around THINKING you are following what you BELIEVE is the law is NOT objective control of force. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to do so - and because of that, it is impossible for you to follow those OBJECTIVE dictates - which makes YOUR use of force NON-objective.

I don't know how to make this clearer to you.

[Godless Capitalist]

To be honest, I have a hard time understanding your posts, and all the capital letters don't help. That's part of why you are not getting the responses you want.

I believe all delegation must be voluntary, including law making and adjudication. Every individual has the right to use force in retaliation, so saying that right MUST be delegated amounts to saying it does not really exist. I believe that anyone is within their rights in using force in retaliation against someone who violates rights, whether against them or some other person. As a practical matter, it is preferable for this to be done mainly by trained police officers, but I am trying to get at the principle, which you keep ignoring. Please explain how I can have a right to use force in retaliation, but at the same time cannot use it but must give it to someone else.

Anyway, let me think about this and come back to it later ...

[RadCap]

"I believe all delegation must be voluntary, including law making and adjudication."

So you have CHANGED your premises then. Because previously you were EXPLICITLY saying that submission TO a judge and laws of a govt was your CONTEXT. You SPECIFICALLY rejected the concept of ANARCHY or competing force, etc etc etc. However, if there is NO monopoly WHATSOEVER in ANY of the areas of the use of force that is EXACTLY what you are talking about then. EACH individual proceeding from what HE percieves is proper and 'rational' and using force to "defend" that position.

It is impossible to carry on a rational discussion when the foundation is shifting.

As it stands, your question NOW pertains the the justification/reason/principle/purpose for ANY govt.. AR had much to say on that topic. I suggest you read some of it (along with that discussion in OPAR).

[Godless Capitalist]

Once again, if I had a fully worked out position I would just present it. I don't; I am trying to work through the ideas, so my position is changing somewhat as I go along. Sorry if that bothers you.

It seems obvious that delegation must be voluntary; if it is mandatory to delegate your rights then they are not really yours to begin with. My premise was just that it was rational to submit to the authority of a government if that government was rationally run.

Also, I would really appreciate it if you would stop capitalizing so many words. I suppose you are doing it for emphasis, but it actually makes your posts harder to understand, not easier.

I will come back to the issues and answer your questions later when I have more time.

[RadCap]

"I am trying to work through the ideas, so my position is changing somewhat as I go along. Sorry if that bothers you."

It "bothers" ANYONE who seeks to be rational. Since we cannot read your mind, we cannot know what you are thinking. We can only go by what you WRITE. And up to your very last post, you were claiming NOT to believe in these things. So either you have not been intellectually honest in your argument and were caught at it - OR you realized an error - corrected it - and did NOT acknowledge you made an error (I suspect the latter). Furthermore, you did NOT indicate you had CHANGED the premises you had been preaching up til now. If YOU want to have a rational discussion YOU must DISCLOSE *any* changes you make TO your premises along the way. Otherwise you are WASTING OUR TIME - and that is DEFINITELY a "bother".

Now - you say:

"My premise was just that it was rational to submit to the authority of a government if that government was rationally run."

My question for you is (and has been) WHY is it rational to submit to the authority of a proper govt? Why is it NOT rational or LESS rational to have every man defend his own rights? What *end* does such submission - such delegation - serve? And why does this principle which justifies recognition/delegation of a proper judiciary and legislature NOT apply to when it comes to *enforcement*? Furthermore, HOW do you serve the above end by destroying the monopoly on force (by severing enforcement from the rest - ie by opening it up to competition)?

I suggest you re-read AR on the subject as I have previously suggested, because she has answered these questions already - and as it stands, they appear to be the source of your conflict.

[Godless Capitalist]

I wasn't aware that there were such strict rules about how I am allowed to discuss things. It really seems as if you are more interested in picking a fight and criticizing me that having a discussion. Why is that?

Anyway, if you still want to actually discuss the issue, please answer these questions:

For me to be able to delegate the right to use force in retaliation, I must have that right in the first place, correct? But if I MUST delegate that right to someone else and not use it myself, then it seems as if I did not really have that right. That seems illogical; how do you explain it?

[Godless Capitalist]

My question for you is (and has been) WHY is it rational to submit to the authority of a proper govt?  Why is it NOT rational or LESS rational to have every man defend his own rights?  What *end* does such submission - such delegation - serve?  And why does this principle which justifies recognition/delegation of a proper judiciary and legislature NOT apply to when it comes to *enforcement*?  Furthermore, HOW do you serve the above end by destroying the monopoly on force (by severing enforcement from the rest - ie by opening it up to competition)?

I'm not questioning whether it's rational to submit to the authority of a proper govt. I'm questioning how it can be compulsory rather than a voluntary choice. It seems like you are just rehashing Rand's argument (which I have read many times), and not addressing my points.

[RationalEgoistSG]

Godless Capitalist,

The reason why your inquiries are particularly annoying is because of the fact that you continue to ask these questions while refusing to define the premises that these questions are based on. Furthermore, it has been revealed that your premises have been constantly changing throughout the entire discussion. How is it possible for a rational person to discuss this topic with you when they have no clue what your premises are? We can not read your mind.

My suggestion to you is this. List the premises that are resulting in this question that you have. Demonstrate that two or more of the premises are contradictory, meaning, find the source of the problem that you are having. From there, we can help to determine either where the source of your error is, which premises are wrong, etc. BUT WE CAN NOT DO THAT unless you tell us what your premises are!

Until you list the premises behind your inquiry in this way, we can not accurately answer your question in any way. I believe that this is what RadCap has been asking you to do throughout this thread. Understand that he is not trying to pick a fight with you, but that he is trying to get you to understand that in order to discuss a particular problem, one must understand the premises that are resulting in the problem first. We can not provide an answer to your question without knowing the cause of your question.

[RadCap]

I'm not questioning whether it's rational to submit to the authority of a proper govt.

Whether or not you think you are asking this question is immaterial. Apparently *I* believe the solution to your dilema resides somewhere in the answer to the question. IGNORING it does NOT help further the conversation nor serve EITHER of our ends.

One begins to wonder WHY throughout this discussion you have resisted answering ANY of the questions asked of you. Instead of FIGHTING against the things we say or ask, you might actually allow yourself to COOPERATE with us. Your combative attitude does not serve to resolve anything.

So just answer the questions.

--

As to these remarks:

I wasn't aware that there were such strict rules about how I am allowed to discuss things.

A RATIONAL discussion requires one to be logical. Logic has VERY strict RULES. So IF, as I stated, you wish to carry on a RATIONAL discussion, you MUST follow these rules. If, on the other hand, you simply wish to carry on a conversation which is contradictory and aimless, then you may do anything you dam well please. Of course, no one here will participate because we do NOT allow such irrationality on the site.

The concept of such rules is BASIC to ANY rational discussion. It is DISINGENUOUS (at BEST) to suggest that you are unaware of them. What's more, this is simply another example of the disturbing trend you have to attack (smear, ridicule, etc) those with whom you disagree (see your Harriman comments for further evidence). I would strongly suggest you refrain from such behavior in the future. IT is not tolerated on this site either.

[Godless Capitalist]

First off, my one comment about Harriman, which I have retracted, is not a trend.

I thought my premises were clear from what I have said so far, but perhaps not. I will start over with a more formal structure:

Premise A: Every individual has the right to use force in retaliation against someone who has initiated force against him/her.

Premise B: Government must have a monopoly on the use of force.

Premise C (Corollary of Premise B ) : An individual who is not part of the government does not have the right to use force in retaliation.

Premises A and C seem to conflict. Please explain why they do not and/or where the error is in the premises.

(edit: Premises A and B are Rand's. I agree with A; I am uncertain about B.)

[RadCap]

I have to conclude at this point that your refusal to answer my questions is not one of ignorance, nor of denseness, but intellectual dishonesty. I have asked REPEATEDLY for such answers and you simply continue to evade those answers. You simply keep restating what is already known about your supposed position.

At this point, I withdraw from the conversation because of your willful irrationality. I will no longer sanction your attempts to ignore reality.

(And you carry this willful irrationality even to your comments in reference to Harriman. Your behavior is a trend because of your posts there AND here - AS I CLEARLY STATED. Setting up such straw men is simply another of the logical fallacies you apparently employ).

[Godless Capitalist]

I thought it would be simpler to just start over and ask you to explain the apparent contradiction, but very well, I will go through and attempt to answer all your questions. I can't figure out how to post multiple quotes, so hopefully this will be clear:

(posted by RadCap)

Suppose an individual DID refuse to delegate his right to self defense? What exactly would happen? How would such a person be treated by a proper govt compared to how he was treated previously? (You may give concrete examples if you think they will help). In other words, what is the difference between a situation where we share the same agent and a situation where you have no agent and I do? What actions could my agent not take that he could previously - ie what means of defense against force (or threat thereof) could not be exercised against the 'self-defending' you, which could be exercised against you when we shared an agent?

(GC response)

There would be no difference in the actions your agent could take. If the 'self-defending' me violated someone's rights, that person or their agent (“proper govt”) could use force in retaliation against me.

(posted by RadCap)

I asked how a government would respond to your force against one of its delegators of force (in this instance, the man whom you believe stole your car). I asked how this response would differ if you were still delegating your right to self-defense. IF it would differ, WHY would it differ? Is the govt NOT the defender of the man you are holding by force against his will? I asked what actions could this man's agent NOT take on HIS behalf which it COULD take if you WERE delegating self-defense?

(GC response)

Yes, the govt. is the defender of the man I am holding by force against his will. If it found that I had violated his rights, it could take action against me to defend him.

(posted by RadCap)

No - you still are not getting my point. You believe someone stole from you. You "capture' this person - ie use force against him. At THAT point in time, what would the agent of such an individual do? Would it simply let you do with the person whatever you choose? Or would it seek to prevent the force? And how would it be different if you were a 'delegator' of force?

(GC response)

The agent would seek to prevent the force if time permitted (ie if I had not already taken my retaliatory actions). At that point I would present my evidence to the agent (govt), and there would be a trial to determine the alleged thief’s guilt or innocence.

If I had already taken my retaliatory actions, the agent might arrest me and there would be a trial to determine if I had violated the alleged thief’s rights.

If I were a delegator of force I would go directly to the govt and ask them to arrest, try, and punish the thief.

(posted by RadCap)

To clear up this persistant confusion on your part, perhaps you should try to explain the difference you imagine exists between a proper govt, which is the agent of your self-defense, and a govt which is NOT your agent but STILL has authority to scrutinize and correct your actions. One of the things you need to answer when making such a comparison is WHERE this second form of govt GETS its authority TO judge your actions and force you to conform to ITS determinations IF you have NOT delegated authority TO it.

(GC response)

The only difference between the two types of govt is that the 2nd one would not have a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force. It gets its authority from the right of every individual to use retaliatory force against anyone who initiates force. An individual may ask govt to use that force on his behalf without giving up the right to also use it himself. (What I am trying to get at is not the authority aspect, but the monopoly on the retaliatory use of force, which is not the same thing.)

(posted by RadCap)

You didn't answer the all important question: where a govt gets authority over you (which you EXPLICITLY grant in your examples) IF you are NOT delegating your right to self-defense.

(GC response)

It gets its authority from the right of others to retaliate against me if I violate their rights. This authority comes from their rights, not mine, and exists whether I accept it or not.

(posted by RadCap)

You say you WOULD be acting in accord with the standards of the govt - ie you would be respecting all the laws, etc.. You would simply be carrying them all out yourself. Seems like delegation to me (because even if you disagree with a law, according to your example you would still enforce the dictates of the govt to which you do NOT delegate your rights and thus are NOT delegating your judgment of what does and does NOT constitute your self-defense). In other words, you CLAIM you are not delegating your right of self-defense, when, in fact, you ARE.

(GC response)

My context in this discussion was a society in which govt is rational and acts solely to protect rights. It assumes that there is no disagreement about what the law should be. My question is about why only govt should be able to act to protect rights and not all citizens.

(posted by RadCap)

You say you are stuck on why a proper govt must have a monopoly on the use of force. AR answers this herself - saying basically that if a monopoly doesn't exist, one is left with a COMPETITION in the use of force. She describes clearly the anti-man results which derive from from such a competition.

(GC response)

It’s not clear to me why there would be a competition. After all, different police forces sometimes go after the same criminal, and they work things out peacefully. As long as everyone is following the same laws and agrees to the ultimate authority of govt, there should not be a problem. Rand’s explanation assumes that an individual using retaliatory force would act on whim and do so irrationally. Of course that would cause problems, but what if they do act rationally?

(posted by RadCap)

However, based upon your previous examples, if there was a disagreement (ie you think the evidence proves guilt - the courts do not), you indicated you would abide by the authority of the judge.

(GC response)

I can’t find an example of mine that fits this description. Could you please point it out?

(posted by RadCap)

So - what happens if you disagree with the judgement of the 'rational' govt? Do you still jail this thief yourself? Or do you turn your back on your own judgements and accept the authority of govt to which you supposedly submit?

(GC response)

If I thought that the judgement of the govt was incorrect I would appeal to a higher court and/or try to have laws changed. If all appeals failed I would conclude that the govt was no longer rational. I would likely continue to submit to it purely to avoid being imprisoned, but I would not consider its authority legitimate. (This of course is the situation we are all in now.)

(posted by RadCap)

I have continually pointed out to you - and you do NOT dispute - that you agree that it is not only "practical" but "proper" to delegate (and submit) to a govt monopoly on law MAKING and AJUDICATION.

The point is, BEFORE you can say why the delegation of ENFORCEMENT is proper or improper, you must FIRST say why ANY delegation is "proper" and not just "practical".

(GC response)

Actually I did not agree to that. I simply began with a context in which gov’t and its laws were rational. I do not agree that it is proper for individuals to accept all laws uncritically because they are created by govt, which seems to be what delegation (and submission) to a govt monopoly on law making would imply. (My vote for a legislator is not a renunciation of my right to judge for myself the validity of the laws he votes for. Stated another way, delegation of a right for practical purposes is not the same as renunciation.) If I thought that a law was irrational I would try to have it changed. If this

Now, I think I have answered all of your questions. They have helped me clarify my position (which actually has not changed substantially since the beginning of the thread). However, I do not seem to be any closer to seeing your objection to my position.