Jeffrey Tang

Well, a betrayal of this magnitude would require quite a bit of remorse and reparation. In most cases, it's unlikely that there would be enough justification for forgiveness (at least right away), but I think it's still possible...

When a person violates another person's rights by committing a crime, we generally state that the offender should be punished by depriving him of his property, his freedom, and in extreme cases his life. Does that mean the offender has (temporarily, at least) forfeited his own rights to life, liberty, and property by denying the existence of these rights through his criminal actions? I'm inclined to say yes. Any input? Criticism? Alternatives?

I think they lacked a complete understanding of how a government ought to be limited, as demonstrated by other clauses in the Constitution (the interstate commerce clause, for example).

First, I apologize if I am derailing the current flow of this thread. Since the upholding of individual rights is the primary purpose of the law, then restoration ought to be the first consideration (in conjunction with retribution, where appropriate) in both criminal and civil cases. I don't see how retribution upholds individual rights, except through the roundabout method of deterrence. Jailing a thief does nothing for that thief's victim; restoring the stolen property (or at least its value) to the victim is more in line with the upholding of individual rights. I agree that restoration can be difficult (in murder cases, for example), but it is not impossible. After all, our current civil courts routinely award damages in cases of wrongful death. I propose that a violation of rights be dealt with thus: First, evaluation of the victim's tangible and intangible losses, followed by restoration of those losses or their equivalent. This restoration may take different forms, and the chosen method of restoration is solely a procedural consideration. Second comes punishment, which consists of two parts: a) removal of all benefits which the perpetrator gained as a result of his or her violations of rights, and b. imposition of proportional penalties if the violation was willful and/or negligent (that is, not a unforeseeable accident). Result: the victim(s) are restored (as nearly as they can be) to their status before their rights were violated, the criminal gains nothing from his actions, and the criminal is punished for his willful transgressions. A few examples: 1) A man is accused and convicted of murder. He is first required to make restitution to the victim (or, in this case, the victim's family) in a way similar that applied to a wrongful death civil suit. He is then stripped of all benefits gained from the murder (either through physically removing benefits or removing monetary value equivalent to those benefits). Finally, he is punished (again, physically, financially, or both) for willfully committing a crime. 2) A man is accused and convicted of attempted murder. He is first required to make restitution to the victim (compensating the victim for medical bills, lost wages, emotional trauma, etc). This restitution is significant, but less than that which the convicted murderer must make. He is then stripped of all benefits (if any) that he gained from his attempt. He is then punished for willfully committing a crime (making no distinction between 'successful' murder and attempted murder. Since the difference between a 'successful' murderer and a 'failed' murderer is one of results, the difference in their punishments reflects that. 3) A man is accused and convicted of involuntary manslaughter. He is required to make restitution to the victim's family (equivalent to that which the convicted murderer must make). He is then stripped of any benefits (although none are likely to exist) that he gained from his actions. He is then punished for the negligence (if any) he displayed in causing the death of another person. 4) A pharmaceutical corporation knowingly puts a dangerous drug onto the market. It is first required to compensate the victims for their losses (tangible and intangible). It is then stripped of any benefits (such as profit) it gained from selling that dangerous drug. (I freely admit that this portion would be complicated, as the court would have to evaluate the benefits of the drug against its dangers.) For knowingly selling a dangerous product, the corporation would also be forced to pay a proportional fine. --- I will say that I am not particularly fond of punishing criminals through jail time, simply because it puts a burden on innocent citizens. If a criminal can be made to work and produce (without personally reaping the benefits of production, of course) as punishment, then he should be made to do so. If a criminal is too dangerous at the moment to be allowed the freedoms associated with production, he may be confined to a corrective facility until such time as he is deemed "safe" enough to work. The time spent in such a correctional facility would be funded by the criminal's own resources (if available) or added to the debt which he must repay upon being allowed to work. If a criminal is judged too dangerous to ever be allowed to work, he may be confined to a detention facility so long as he has the resources to pay for his own confinement and support (food, water, clothing, etc). If, however, a criminal is judged too dangerous to ever be allowed to work, and lacks the resources to pay for his own confinement and support, execution (using inexpensive means) is the final option. Comments?

I don't see why introspection is inherently less accurate than an observation of external reality. I see no need to examine all of my mental content simultaneously for introspection. When we make an observation about external reality, we do not examine all of reality simultaneously. An observation (internal or external) requires examination of a limited number of factors and attributes, followed by "checking" against other factors and attributes.

I see your point, SuperMetroid. However, I will freely admit to having very limited exposure to the emergent behavior of complex systems. Might anyone have resources to recommend on this topic?

The problem lies not in the idea of providing "just compensation" for a person's property, but in the statement's ambiguity. Perhaps the founders meant this clause to act solely as a prohibition against taking property by force, but the language they used is too easily twisted. The founders may have intended something like this: Interpretation A: "The government is prohibited from taking private property for public use. Instead, the government is only permitted to purchase private property by offering 'just compensation.' The private citizen may accept or reject this exchange. However, the clause is easily twisted by the government into: Interpretation B: "So long as the government provides what it considers 'just compensation,' it is allowed to force private citizens into giving up their land for public use." Interpretation A treats "just compensation" as a voluntary option which prohibits coercion; the government may not acquire private property through force, but only through proposing a voluntary sale. Interpretation B (the one used by the government today) treats "just compensation" as an exclusionary condition: "government can forcibly acquire private property so long as it simultaneously provides the property holder with what it (the government) judges as "just compensation."

I don't think committing adultery strips someone of his/her Objectivist "membership card." People will make mistakes; the acid test is how they respond to those mistakes. As for whether or not adultery is a dealbreaker, I'd have to say it comes down to your judgment about your spouse and your marriage. There's nothing wrong with forgiving someone (that is, making a rational judgment that a person's transgression is an aberration and is NOT indicative of that person's moral character), so long as that person is genuinely remorseful and makes appropriate reparations (marriage counseling, for example).

Hello to all you online Objectivists! My name is Jeffrey Tang. I'm a writer and internet entrepreneur living in Austin, TX. I've been a philosopher all my life, but I encountered Objectivism only after reading Anthem, Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead (in that order) a few years ago. I remember that reading Atlas Shrugged felt like coming home. Despite being relatively new (time-wise) to Objectivism, I like to think I have a pretty good grasp of its tenets, concepts, and implications, and I hope to have some engaging discussions here at Objectivism Online. Nice to meet you all! To life!