Objectivism and the Contemporary Police Officer; Compatible or mutuall

[StrictlyLogical]

I think there is a distinction here.

 

An employer asking you to do something which violates the rights of others (regardless of the employer) is one thing.

 

An employer, say a person in the business of X, asks you to perform things which IF YOU were running the business X, you would not do because it is a waste of resources.  Here the mere fact that you are asked to do something in a chain of production and decision which you know to be a misallocation of resources is not an issue of principle.  The question is whether what you are being paid,is enough for you to do what is asked even though it may drive you nuts to know it is a waste.

 

Businesses are allowed to make bad business decisions, it is not a principle of Objectivism that you substitute your judgement (even if correct) for your bosses judgement, said boss the entity with whom you have a contract.

[Jonathan13]

Because it would contradict his professional duties which is an enforcement of the current law.

I don't accept your assertion that he has a "duty" to enforce any and every law that society comes up with.

 

He can perform only duties which are in accordance with his ethics. He may work for example in the homicide or anti-fraud department. But if he asked to arrest prostitutes or drug users, or to enforce any subjective law which violates man's rights, he should resign.

No, he should invoke Rand's defense of lying in the face of the threat of initiation of force, and apply it to his profession. He should intentionally bungle the arrests of prostitutes and drug users.

 

Since a police officer usually cannot choose his line of work and acts under command, and most of the existing laws are subjective, I cannot see how he could keep his job.

I see the opposite. I see police officers, IRS agents, military personel, etc., as virtuous for taking government positions with the purpose of refusing to enforce immoral laws.

J

[Nicky]

This really isn't the alternative.

Like I explained in my previous post, I'm not trying to list every possible option. Just the realistic ones. I disagree that your third option can work, I think it would just be martyrdom (a symbolic act that attempts to demonstrate the truth value of ones beliefs by instead demonstrating the strength of one's conviction through self sacrifice).

If people refuse to enter the force there will be strains on the system, sure. But people can make it known why they aren't entering the police force, which would leave LEO administrations with a decision to make regarding how to use limited resources: Do we continue to enforce the laws that are causing a shortage of talent, or we I enforce other laws? Given enough time and pressure LEOs might flip their position on drug laws in general.

Are you arguing for shrugging (or striking, whichever word you want to use - I'll go with shrugging) in general, or just in this case?

If just in this case, what's the difference? Why would this method of attempting to influence the government work in this case, but not in other cases (for instance, in discouraging taxation by refusing to take jobs in the overt economy, the way the "anarcho-objectivist" guy suggested in a recent thread)?

If we're going to try shrugging, shouldn't everybody who believes in freedom do it all at once? What use is it if a few thousand potential police academy recruits with libertarian views start a strike on their own, while everyone else carries on like normal?

I know I couldn't throw someone in a cage simply because it was part of the job. I'd probably be willing to accept lower levels of government involvement if I worked in a different government-controlled field (like if I was a nuclear technician).

Why would a cop's culpability be different for lending his services to the government, than that of a highly productive person who hands this same government a large chunk of his income? If you choose to work as a nuclear technician, you don't just give this government 40 hours a week of muscle-work. You give it about 40% of all your (considerable) productive capacity. That's far more material support than some vice cop.

You may be less directly involved (allowing you to ignore the ugliness), but how is it a LOWER LEVEL of involvement?

Edited December 3, 2013 by Nicky

[FeatherFall]

I'd have replied sooner but I was having fun at Disney World.

I'm not advocating martyrdom, nor am I advocating shrugging. I'm saying, as a personal choice, I can't bring myself to throw an innocent human into a cage even if I am presented with the same incentives as the contemporary police officer. I can't take pride in enforcing justice when I'm so blatantly contradicting that virtue on a daily basis. The idea makes me feel physically ill. Other people might be able to do that without feeling like an evil P.O.S. I'm not necessarily condemning them, though I don't rule out a proper condemnation. I will say that I am impressed by people who successfully remove more coercion from their lives than I can. I took Pell grants, and I share Rand's evaluation of them. But I'm impressed by people who have found a way to fund their education without them. Does that make sense?