Anarchy and Objectivism

[KendallJ]

You make the sticking point extremely salient in this argument. It is not a matter of "allowing", it is a matter of rights. When we start talking about it being "better" to allow this or forbid that we leave the realm of principle and fall into utilitarianism.

Let's take this principle just a little bit farther. If you reject the "social contract" (I disagree with your characterization, but your terminology), and the basis for reasonable/unreasonable behavior arguments for the monopoly on retaliatory force in favor of the principle that the delegation to government of relatiatory force by man is withdrawable at anytime, my question becomes why is the government naturally the only body to which such rights can be delegated. By what princpile of natural rights is govt the only agent for me to have the option of vesting with my rights? If I have complete freedom to recall them from govt at any time I see fit, why can I not assign them to some other agent with the same amount of freedom?

It seems to me like you are a de facto anarchist, in principle.

Edited March 26, 2008 by KendallJ

[mrocktor]

It seems to me like you are a de facto anarchist, in principle.

That is how it seems at first glance. However, looking at it carefully, I don't think it is so. What makes the government "THE" government is that it holds all individuals (and anyone else that these individuals choose to employ for whatever purpose) to a single standard - a single objective law.

In other words, even though the individual is free to act in retaliation or to hire someone to do so, neither of them will escape being arrested and tried for those acts. IF they can prove their acts were legitimate, they are not convicted. But that is a huge "if", as we have been discussing.

And in no way do I believe that it is the individual or any organization's right to challenge the aforementioned government's authority to hold them accountable.

Anyway this is where my reasoning has me at the moment, and its not comfortable. An odd position to hold, I suppose, not anarchism but also not Objectivism. But then, Objectivism itself is odd to 95% of people too since it is neither "left" nor "right".

[DavidOdden]

Yes.

Dude, "yes" is not a proper answer to the question "do you accept or reject?". I wanted to know which one. I assume you reject the position that individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law, so I'll have to see what your theory of individual rights actually is.

You are ignoring the possibility that an individual may actually not be acting on whim, but on objective knowledge.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying that this presumption hasn't been established. The person may well think that Jones stole his stuff; but I haven't see that evidence. Just because Jones was known to have eyed the stuff is no proof that Jones did indeed steal the stuff. In addition, we need to see the evidence that it was not actually Jones' stuff. I've had stuff stolen from me; and I am also pretty sure that it ended up in the possession of some innocent third party (call him Williams, though I've never known who ended up with my stolen stuff). The stuff that Williams thought was his, wasn't really his, even though he actually thought it was. All that's missing here is the fact that I don't actually know who ended up with the stuff. If I knew that, under the vigilante theory of rights, I would be justified in breaking into Williams' house to retrieve my goods, and punishing him. Williams needs to be careful and be utterly positive that I don't actually have a vigilante right to what he thinks is his stuff.

I don't accept the "you are free within the law" argument for mandatory delegation of this right.

And presumably you would deny that "A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control", thus no objective control of force is required.

From my current point of view, the man should not be convicted of a criminal offense for doing what the law itself determines should be done. This does not mean that he should not be tried, but that the veredict should be not-guilty, on the basis that his use of force actually was proper - if he can prove it.

An important premise here is that the law does determine that punishment should be handed down -- well, what does that involve? It involves a trial of the initial accused, and the accused has the right to defend himself against the accusation. The accused can answer the allegation that he took the stuff -- in fact he has witnesses to show that he was elsewhere. The accused can answer the allegation that he had no right to the stuff -- turns out, it was actually his stuff so it wasn't legally theft. The accused can also answer the allegation that he had the scienter -- he didn't steal the stuff, someone planted the stuff in his backpack and he was in innocent and unknowing possession of another man's goods. There are many safeguards on the governments use of force, designed to protect the rights of individuals from unjust force -- these have to be observed, in all cases.

At the minimum, the alleged criminal must then be tried and convicted following standard legal procedure, and if the alleged criminal is not convicted, there can be no question that the vigilante has initiated force. This poses a problem, since you need evidence to establish guilt, and it's unlikely that such evidence could survive the vigilante's action. Certainly not in a theft case -- the recovery would irretrievably compromise the evidentiary value of the goods. In addition, the law does not sanction beating the crap out of convicted thieves, so the vigilante cannot dole out any actual punishment.

Inspector's scenario sucks on a few points but we can fix that. Man A must leave the gun alone: it is important forensic evidence and A cannot tamper with it. Man A cannot actually kill B, since that would leave B incapable of defending himself in court (which is necessary: to free A, you have to convict B, and you cannot convict B if B cannot defend himself -- which, as a dead man, he can't do). Assuming those modifications, then the trial of B may procede; if B is not irrevocably convicted, A must now be punished for initiation of force. But (and this is important) if B's conviction can be overturned, then A cannot be let off the hook. What is required then is not the usual "proof beyond reasonable doubt" proof of guilt, but Mitt Romney's insane "proof beyond possible doubt" standard. Hence we need sufficient eyewitnessage.

[Acount Overdrawn]

And this is really the bone. It assumes that all individuals will use force based on whim and thus must give up their right to retaliate. Or, it assumes that many individuals will use force based on whim and from that derives that all must give up their right to retaliate because "it is better for everyone that way" or "it is needed for civilized society". This is utilitarianism.

If a free society requires that an individual give up his rights against his will, it is not a free society. You can argue that the individual does NOT have a right to retaliate against criminals in the first place - but this undermines the legitimacy of government retaliation. You cannot package deal "living in society" with "choosing to give up your right of retaliation", this is the exact same argument welfare statists use to defend taxation - "if you don't like it, go away". It fails there and here for the same reason.

You're making the same error that Roy Childs, and probably the majority of Objectivists-turned-Anarchists, did and still do.

Here's the best reply I've heard to Roy Childs' dispute about force not being left to the discretion of individuals:

Morally, a man has the right to retaliate against those who initiate force. In fact, as Ayn Rand pointed out, assuming he is able to do so, retaliation is a moral imperative. Refusing to retaliate against an aggressor is to sanction his aggression -- and to welcome more of it. Yet, if he is living in a society of other men, it is not enough that an individual determine in his own mind that his use of force is retaliatory. Since whether an act of force is initiatory or retaliatory is not self-evident, and since a man who initiates force is by that fact a threat to society, any man who engages in force that has not been proved by objective means to be retaliatory must be considered a threat. This is the deepest reason why the use of retaliatory force must be delegated to the government: an act of retaliation that isn't first proved to be an act of retaliation is indistinguishable from an act of aggression -- and must be treated as such.

There is no assumption about the use of force being based on "whim," as mrocktor seems to think. Indeed, a person's use of force can be completely rational and appropriate, depending on the severity of his situation, such as his life being at stake. However, since force is essentially a social issue, and humans are not telepathic, any unproved act of force must be considered as initiatory by the society at large, and treated as such. In that sense, such unproved acts are whims, because there is no proven reason for other people to believe that the act of force was justified.

Again, I ask that people who agree with mrocktor's point look at Don Watkin's essay "Epistemological Anarchy," which can be found at Noodlefood.

[Acount Overdrawn]

Again, I ask that people who agree with mrocktor's point look at Don Watkin's essay "Epistemological Anarchy," which can be found at Noodlefood.

By "again" I mean that this is my second request for people to look at the essay. This was the first time I mentioned mrocktor at all.

[DavidOdden]

Again, I ask that people who agree with mrocktor's point look at Don Watkin's essay "Epistemological Anarchy," which can be found at Noodlefood.

This essay.

[Koustubh]

And you can't rationally argue that "since not everyone is rational all the time, if everyone were free to retaliate it would be chaos". While the assumption is true - certainly most people seeking retribution are not in a rational frame of mind - this argument is simple pragmatism, justifying something by the envisioned consequences.

Thus my current intellectual bind.

I think you agree that a society that allowed people to "take justice in their own hands" would soon devolve into chaos. Yet you think that people should be free to retalliate to force even outside of emergencies by principle. That is the contradiction. Your principle that man should always be free to retalliate to force does not account for the fact that man lives in a society, that it is crucially important (for their own security) for his neighbors to judge his use of force, that his neighbors are not omniscient and need objective evidence to judge.

Every is implies an ought. The fact that man is in a society, that his knowledge is limited and that the use of force is destructive, imply that he ought to delegate the responsibility for the retalliatory use of force to a government.

You say that justifying something by the envisioned consequences is pragmatism. It is not. It is final causation. It is only by envisioning consequences in the context of the nature of man and the requirements of a rational mind, that we can derive principles. Pragmatism is the rejection of these principles as being irrelevant.

[mrocktor]

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying that this presumption hasn't been established. The person may well think that Jones stole his stuff; but I haven't see that evidence.

There you go again. We are not trying Jones here, we are arguing whether he, alone, is capable of objectively knowing that he was stolen, and who did it. And if so, whether he has a right to rectify the situation by force.

All of your considerations are 100% valid when subsequently Jones is put on trial for his act of force (which I think he should be, though I also think he should be absolved if he can prove he acted legitimately).

At the risk of introducing a personal observation, I think your legal knowlege may be getting in the way of seeing the fundamentals here.

And presumably you would deny that "A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control", thus no objective control of force is required

No, I am not arguing that. Quite the contrary, I am discussing whether if an individual is found to have used force objectively by this very same government he should be treated as a criminal.

Here's the best reply I've heard to Roy Childs' dispute about force not being left to the discretion of individuals

This quote from the Epistemological Anarchy article is excelent, it makes the problem that bothers me evident! Here we go:

Morally, a man has the right to retaliate against those who initiate force. In fact, as Ayn Rand pointed out, assuming he is able to do so, retaliation is a moral imperative. Refusing to retaliate against an aggressor is to sanction his aggression -- and to welcome more of it.

So the individual has a right to retaliate. Note that this is primary, and that it assumes (correctly) that an individual is capable of objectively using force - though obviously it is not guaranteed that he will do so.

Yet, if he is living in a society of other men, it is not enough that an individual determine in his own mind that his use of force is retaliatory.

"Enough" for what? It is certainly enough

for him

, since truth does not come from consensus or from government decree. And this is the huge issue being evaded here. It is possible for the individual to know, with absolute certainty, that a crime has been commited against him, and to retaliate objectively. Remember, this is assumed in the very beginning when it was stated that he has a

right

to do so.

Since whether an act of force is initiatory or retaliatory is not self-evident, and since a man who initiates force is by that fact a threat to society, any man who engages in force that has not been proved by objective means to be retaliatory must be considered a threat.

Who is this "society"? It would be correct to say that such a man must be considered a threat by other men. Even if he is using force objectively! Now the issue that the vigilante is acting on his own becomes relevant - since other people don't know that his use of force is legitimate they

should

consider him a threat. This is why I am saying the guys should be arrested.

This is the deepest reason why the use of retaliatory force must be delegated to the government: an act of retaliation that isn't first proved to be an act of retaliation is indistinguishable from an act of aggression -- and must be treated as such.

This is false. An act of retaliation that isn't

first

proved to be an act of retaliation

is

distiguishable from aggression if it can be proved to be an act of retaliation

after the fact

. Thus the man should be arrested and tried, if he cannot prove his use of force was legitimate, he gets convicted. David lists numerous reasons why such a standard of proof would be very hard to meet indeed. I have no problem with that.

In that sense, such unproved acts are whims, because there is no proven reason for other people to believe that the act of force was justified.

A man may use force based on whim. He should be treated as a criminal. A man may use force objectively but be incapable of proving it. He should be dealt with as a criminal (because everyone else has no evidence his act was legitimate). He may act objectively and be able to prove it. What then?

I think you agree that a society that allowed people to "take justice in their own hands" would soon devolve into chaos.

I disagree. I think a society where there is no objective definition of "justice" (i.e. objective law) would devolve into chaos. I think a society where there is no ultimate arbiter holding everyone to that standard would devolve into chaos. This does not contradict what I'm arguing here.

It is in fact "your side" of the argument that is embracing a contradiction - that a man as an individual is capable and has a right to retaliate, but when in society suddenly loses this capability and must be forced to not exercise his right. I think he should be left free - but held accountable. Subtle, and probably irrelevant in practice since the burden of proof is on him and is extremely difficult to meet.

Edited March 27, 2008 by mrocktor

[DavidOdden]

We are not trying Jones here, we are arguing whether he, alone, is capable of objectively knowing that he was stolen, and who did it.

Jones can take the evidence that he is aware of and rationally reach a logical conclusion as to whether another person violated his rights. That conclusion may be valid, or invalid, depending on the level of his ignorance. (And I am assuming that he is rigorous in his adherence to logic -- if we isn't, we may as well be asking whether a may has the right to shoot his neighbor based on a coin toss).

And if so, whether he has a right to rectify the situation by force.

With no further context, no, he does not. It is never moral to use force against a person. Without appropriate added context, such a departure from moral action that cannot be sanctioned by law (codified moral requirements, expressed in terms of "rights").

No, I am not arguing that. Quite the contrary, I am discussing whether if an individual is found to have used force objectively by this very same government he should be treated as a criminal.

You're still evading the question, and it matters, because you have to have the right answer to the question before deciding whether the government should treat him as a criminal. There are only three possible rational answers to the question of whether you accept Rand's statement on rights. You either accept it, you reject it, or you have not decided. At this point in the discussion, you have to at least be self-aware enough to know whether you accept, reject, or cannot decide. And I can't see any reason why you would not say whether it's accept, reject or undecided.

This is, as far as I can see, what the matter ultimately boils down to. You apparently want a version of the concept "rights" where a "right" is a primitive concept (though I don't know what that concept is for you -- that's why I keep asking what your theory of "rights" is), a version where using force against another person is a "right". In contrast, Objectivism does not see "rights" as being a primitive, but derives the concept of rights from the choice to exist and the nature of man. Thus a right to actual and immediate self-defense is validated with reference to the contradiction between "action qua man" (not existing by force) and the fact that force has been used against you -- and the contextual fact that there is no moral alternative. In vengeance cases, on the other hand, there is a moral alternative -- allow the government to perform its rightful function, and be the agent of force. If you accept that the individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law, then you have to accept the necessity of delegating the use of force to the govenment.

But since you don't want to accept that conclusion, then you have to reject the "subordinating society to moral law" notion of rights, you have to have some different theory of rights, and you have to hold "protection of my rights" as being your primary moral goal, with respect to other people.

[Ifat Glassman]

I've changed my mind about whose responsibility it is to prove that a citizen using retaliatory force was just. I think it's the citizen's responsibility.

First of all, as the sentence above implies, I do think that such a right exists.

The reason is that knowledge a person has can be wider than the evidence he can provide for a crime.

The government can only act based on the evidence a citizen provides. In such cases, the only way for self defense is by taking retaliatory force to one's own hands.

However, it is the citizen's responsibility to provide evidence that his actions are justified: that he used the minimal force needed to defend himself or his property and that there was indeed initiation of force against him.

The reason is that the government is paid by citizens to protect them and ensure justice.

They can only act and be expected to act based on the knowledge they have.

What is the knowledge they have when they see the broken windows of Jones's house, after Smith has broken into it to retrieve the stolen wallet which only Smith saw get stolen? They have broken window and Smith's fingerprints on it.

Is the government justified in punishing Smith now, given that this is all they know? Yes. Because they are paid to defend Jones's rights, and by evidence, Smith has used unjustified force. Every man has the right of self-defense, and justice can only be practiced based on available knowledge, hence they have a right to arrest Smith.

Therefore, if Smith accepts that other people have a right for self defense (which they can delegate to the government), and if he realized that people can only act based on knowledge available to them, he must also realize that he must provide evidence to support his story. He must be able to prove beyond a doubt that he was acting justly: That his wallet was stolen by Jones, and that he indeed used the minimum force required to retrieve it.

Consider that in this example there was no way to provide evidence for the theft unless and until Smith broke into Jones's house and and collect evidence that the wallet was stolen by Jones.

The only two options for Smith were to do nothing, ignore what he knows, or to use retaliatory force. Telling the police about this case is not enough evidence to justify a search in Joe's house by the police, which is the only action that could provide proof for the theft.

[Ifat Glassman]

A correction to my previous post: I said that "The reason [to justify use of retaliatory force by a citizen] is that knowledge a person has can be wider than the evidence he can provide for a crime.".

However, I don't think this is actually the justification.

I think the justification is that a citizen has a right to choose by himself his method and means of self-defense, as long as it is rational and just. But just as he wants to act based on his own knowledge, he must respect other's right to act on their own knowledge in a rational manner. So, respecting their right to self-defense (which can only be based in practice on their knowledge), if he wants a peaceful co-existence, he must provide evidence to them to justify his actions.

He cannot expect them to act based on what HE knows, only based on what THEY know. So until there is a method to record thoughts and memories and to verify that they are reality-based, he must provide evidence.

This way, the government protection is not forced on him as the only mean of self-defense, but he also needs to prove to society (or government) the justification of his actions (in this way he adheres to the law).

[mrocktor]

With no further context, no, he does not.

Well, in your view using force to reclaim stole property is not a corollary to the right to property - since it requires the sanction of others. I disagree.

It is never moral to use force against a person.

No, it is never moral to initiate force against a person. Without added context, to "use" force against a person is neither moral or imoral - judgment is not possible without the context. The burden of proof DOES lie with the individual who used force though.

There are only three possible rational answers to the question of whether you accept Rand's statement on rights.

I agree that rights are a means to subject society to moral law. I disagree that government approval is the source of legitimacy of an act of force. It is a means to assure legitimacy, but individuals are capable of legitimate acts of force.

In other words, moral law states "this is a crime, don't do it. If you do, force will be used against you and this is the penalty taht will be imposed". This law applies to individuals. This is not up for debate.

There is a whole other kind of law, the kind that determines how the government must operate. "When a police officer approaches a suspect he must give warning" or "he must read his rights when he arrests him". These are limitations on government. They exist to guarantee that government acts are objective because the government does not answer to anyone else.

This way, the government protection is not forced on him as the only mean of self-defense, but he also needs to prove to society (or government) the justification of his actions (in this way he adheres to the law).

I agree.

Edited March 27, 2008 by mrocktor

[DavidOdden]

Well, in your view using force to reclaim stole property is not a corollary to the right to property - since it requires the sanction of others.

If you consider what you actually said, I doubt that you think that using force is a corollary of the right to property. Maybe you mean "a right to use force to reclaim property", or perhaps "a wish...", I can't tell. In fact, I am saying that when a person has a choice between acting morally versus abandoning moral action, it is immoral to not make the moral choice; and that furthermore, when it come to using force against another person, the government should prevent him from acting immorally.

No, it is never moral to initiate force against a person. Without added context, to "use" force against a person is neither moral or imoral - judgment is not possible without the context.

There is no context that you can add that ever makes using force against another person moral. At best, you can hope for a judgment of amorality, as in the case of self defense.

Since concepts of rights in Objectivism derive from those conditions necessary for man's survival qua man, and those conditions are derived from man's nature, we should ask a fundamental question -- what is man's nature? I would say that man's nature is to exist using reason. You may want to say something different, for example "man's nature is to exist using reason, or using force in response to force". If that is your view of man's nature, then I can see how you concluded that it can be moral for man to survive by force.

[Olex]

This essay.

It seems to be down at the moment.

[Olex]

That is how it seems at first glance. However, looking at it carefully, I don't think it is so. What makes the government "THE" government is that it holds all individuals (and anyone else that these individuals choose to employ for whatever purpose) to a single standard - a single objective law.

I am going to nitpick here, since I didn't see this argument raised and the article is down that David provided on http://www.dianahsieh.com/. My own link reference is a youtube video:

by Paul McKeever (Freedom Party of Ontario). He provides basic outline of the argument.

The whole point of the government is to have objective law.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html

"A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws."

This means a government is the ONLY means to place physical force under objective control. Not all governments would have objective laws, of course, but it's the only way to be able to have objective laws.

If any person is allowed to enforce his decision with "appropriate and legal" retaliation, then such persons would have to be able to judge and know all laws and rules required for executing an action. This includes rules for: what is an evidence? what is the correct punishment?

However, this does not lead to placing physical force under objective law. Instead, it means that I should now expect any stranger to hit me in a head, and then later wait in a trial (if I survive) where he will be trying to prove that what he did was correct and legal.

Well, will every such person know the rules? Will they use the same rules? This is way too open for an individual judgment over the retaliatory use of physical force.

That's just not an environment where a human life is properly possible.

Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors' intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice - the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.

Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government," The Virtue of Selfishness, 108.

It's not the right direction to consider if an individual has a right to retaliate based on the right to property.

The rights themselves come from judging what a man needs to be able to thrive as a human being. If one can show that (as the argument above does) this retaliation in a human society leads to impossibility of a human life qua man, then one ought not have the right to retaliate by his own decision, even if it happens to be a rational decision and correct in the end.

[mrocktor]

"a right to use force to reclaim property"

This is what I meant.

There is no context that you can add that ever makes using force against another person moral. At best, you can hope for a judgment of amorality, as in the case of self defense.

Using force against another person when needed for self defense (which subsumes defense of life and property) is moral. Morally mandatory, in fact. Whether you do it yourself or delegate it does not change this.

"man's nature is to exist using reason, or using force in response to force"

It is rational to use force in response to force. You are creating a false dichotomy. If it were otherwise, there would be no right to delegate and no purpose for a government.

[Koustubh]

It is in fact "your side" of the argument that is embracing a contradiction - that a man as an individual is capable and has a right to retaliate, but when in society suddenly loses this capability and must be forced to not exercise his right.

A right to retaliate (if granted) only has meaning in a social context. So no one is suddenly losing anything.

If such a right were granted even outside of emergencies, everyone would remain at the mercy of any person who believes he is justified in using force (maybe he is actually retaliating, or maybe he is deluded or maybe he thinks he can manufacture evidence or whatever).

Rights come from a recognition of man's nature. Men are not omniscient and even rational men can make mistakes. If a rational man believes that he has been the victim of force and makes a mistake, innocents will be harmed. If the man knows his retaliation will be punished, he will allow the law to take its course (assuming that he is rational).

I think he should be left free - but held accountable. Subtle, and probably irrelevant in practice since the burden of proof is on him and is extremely difficult to meet. (italics mine)

You propose to grant the "right" to retaliate and then hold anyone who acts on that "right" as guilty until proved innocent?? Then you accept that the "right" would be irrelevant in practice. That is what you get by proposing a right that should not be there in the first place.

[Koustubh]

There is no context that you can add that ever makes using force against another person moral. At best, you can hope for a judgment of amorality, as in the case of self defense.

It is not clear to me why acting in self defense in an emergency is amoral at best.

[Acount Overdrawn]

So the individual has a right to retaliate. Note that this is primary, and that it assumes (correctly) that an individual is capable of objectively using force - though obviously it is not guaranteed that he will do so.

This is what you have to banish from your mind. In an individual's context, once he's gone through the proper cognitive steps, he can consider a claim as proved--he's only dealing with his own mind. In this context, such objectivity in his own mind is primary.

But in a social context, when he has to deal with other people's minds and is trying to peacefully co-exist with them, objectivity implies new demands, as Watkins pointed out.

Rand's point is that objectivity imposes requirements, not only in a person's mind, but in how they express themselves in a social context.

"Enough" for what? It is certainly enough for him, since truth does not come from consensus or from government decree. And this is the huge issue being evaded here. It is possible for the individual to know, with absolute certainty, that a crime has been [sic]commited against him, and to retaliate objectively. Remember, this is assumed in the very beginning when it was stated that he has a right to do so.

Isn't there something rationalistic going on in this issue you have? Let me try to identify it, so that I'm not dismissing your points without justification.

From the conclusion that a person can have certainty about a crime being committed against him, you seem to be deducing that this person's certainty is sufficient to retaliate in a social context as well--but this is false. This is why we have security cameras, the numerous legal procedures, and the many other aspects of crime prevention and prosecution--because men are not omniscient, and neither are we easily convinced by hearing "one side of the story."

This "huge issue" isn't being evaded: it has been acknowledged, but deemed irrelevant in a social context. In a social context, because you are dealing with people who do not have instant access to your mind and reasoning, it is not enough to determine in your mind that your act of force was retaliatory; everyone else (especially the government) needs to know the facts, and be able to judge them with their own minds.

To answer your question "Enough for what?" :

The person using force is living with other people in a society. His use of force may be retaliatory, but that fact is not enough for other people to know that it was retaliatory. To know whether or not they should continue to deal with him (and whether or not the government should imprison him for a crime) he must prove that his use of force was, in fact, retaliatory.

Who is this "society"? It would be correct to say that such a man must be considered a threat by other men. Even if he is using force objectively! Now the issue that the vigilante is acting on his own becomes relevant - since other people don't know that his use of force is legitimate they should consider him a threat. This is why I am saying the guys should be arrested.

The point is that any private use of force is not legitimate, i.e., lawful.

This is false. An act of retaliation that isn't first proved to be an act of retaliation is distiguishable from aggression if it can be proved to be an act of retaliation after the fact. Thus the man should be arrested and tried, if he cannot prove his use of force was legitimate, he gets convicted. David lists numerous reasons why such a standard of proof would be very hard to meet indeed. I have no problem with that.

You're only showing why Watkins is right here. Why do we arrest and try the man in the first place?--Because an act of retaliation is not distinguishable from an act of aggression. This is why the man has to prove his case after the fact: to show that indeed his use of force was retaliatory in nature and not aggression. Until proven to be otherwise, all private acts of force are to be considered to be acts of aggression.

He may act objectively and be able to prove it. What then?

If he can prove his case in a court of law, then I have no objections to letting him go free.

[DavidOdden]

It is not clear to me why acting in self defense in an emergency is amoral at best.

Because it forces you to deny man's nature -- survival by reason, not by force -- in order to survive. This is a fundamental contradiction which cannot be integrated. Since morality is a set of concepts applied rationally to determine a man's actions, any fundamentally contradictory situation is outside of the domain of morality.

[DavidOdden]

If he can prove his case in a court of law, then I have no objections to letting him go free.

For the record, while we seem to agree on the larger issue, I have an objection to letting him free. I hate to say thus, but I think you just accepted Mrocktor's bottom line there. The way the real world generally is right now, is that you don't have a right to vigilante action and if you engage in such action you will be triable for the relevant offense such as assault, theft, whatever. This is distinct from actual self-defensish and crime in progress situations as Inspector spun off in that parallel thread. What Mrock is basically proposing is a new kind of defense / justification (parallel to the Texas justification statute), the "Would have anyhow" defense whereby if the law would have necessarily dictated a certain set of actions had the matter been pursued in accordance with the law, then any citizen is legally allowed to pursue those actions without legal recourse, regardless of the lack of advance proof that the law would have so dictated.

The position that I have taken is that when a man is faced with the choice of justice while not using force against another man, and justice by using force against another man, the moral choice is justice not using force. And furthermore, this is one of those areas of moral choice -- the use of force against others -- which is properly prohibited by and punishable under law. (Needless to say, the fact that factually accurate vigilante assault is immoral and punishable under the law does not mean that it is morally and punitively equivalent to plain assault).

[Acount Overdrawn]

Since Olex (and perhaps others) have not or could not see the essay "Epistemological Anarchy," I will now post it. Note that I just received Don Watkins' permission to do so:

Epistemological Anarchy

by Don @ 8:46 AM [Dec. 22, 2005]

If you have ever debated the issue of limited government versus anarchy with an anarchist, you have undoubtedly run into this argument: "Every government in history has violated individual rights, so what grounds do you have for believing there could be a government that doesn't?"

In fact, our own Stephan Kinsella raised this point in his current discussion with Dave Harrison. He said, "All of our experience and history shows all states to ride roughshod over citizens' rights."

(Dave's response was perfect: "To some extent or another, depending on the state. And therefore what?")

What I want to note is the epistemological error in the anarchist's argument. Specifically, the false view of induction.

To take the standard example, suppose I observe a hundred swans, all of which are white. This by itself would not justify concluding that all swans are white. Induction does not work by enumeration. To generalize, you would have to know why all swans must be white -- what in their nature causes them to be white?

In the same way, you cannot argue that because all governments have violated individual rights, that all governments must violate rights. You would have to be able to identify something in the nature of government that necessitates the violation of individual rights. Never has an anarchist succeeded at this task.

The closest anyone has ever come was Roy Childs, who famously argued that in barring other individuals and organizations from the use of retaliatory force, a government is initiating force. But, as I have argued elsewhere, Childs' argument shares the fatal flaw that plagues almost every anarchist argument: the complete evasion of the requirements of objectivity.

In one of her Ford Hall Forum speeches, Ayn Rand read a quote so horrific and illustrative of the point she was making that the audience burst into applause. Rand paused for a moment and explained to the audience that their applause was non-objective, since she had no way of knowing whether they were agreeing with the quote or with Rand. Rand's point is that objectivity imposes requirements, not only in a person's mind, but in how they express themselves in a social context. Each audience member knew why he was applauding, but his applause was non-objective because the person he was trying to communicate with, Ayn Rand, had no means of knowing what his applause was attempting to communicate.

The same principle applies to the issue of retaliation.

In his open letter to Ayn Rand, Childs disputes Rand's claim that, "The use of physical force -- even its retaliatory use -- cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens." He writes:

Morally, a man has the right to retaliate against those who initiate force. In fact, as Ayn Rand pointed out, assuming he is able to do so, retaliation is a moral imperative. Refusing to retaliate against an aggressor is to sanction his aggression -- and to welcome more of it. Yet, if he is living in a society of other men, it is not enough that an individual determine in his own mind that his use of force is retaliatory. Since whether an act of force is initiatory or retaliatory is not self-evident, and since a man who initiates force is by that fact a threat to society, any man who engages in force that has not been proved by objective means to be retaliatory must be considered a threat. This is the deepest reason why the use of retaliatory force must be delegated to the government: an act of retaliation that isn't first proved to be an act of retaliation is indistinguishable from an act of aggression -- and must be treated as such.

What, then, are "objective means"? To determine that an instance of force is retaliatory, men must know what the act of force was, the general standard by which guilt is to be determined, and what evidence was used to meet that standard in a particular case. Every member of society must have access to this information. And, of course, each of these elements must be objective (the laws, standards of evidence, and the evaluation of whether the evidence in question meets that standard). By its nature, then, objectivity in retaliation cannot be achieved without a government (assuming we are speaking here of a society of men and not individuals or isolated tribes). If an individual uses force, by that very fact he is an objective threat to other members of society and may properly be restrained, even if he was responding to another man's aggression. He has no grounds for claiming his rights are being violated.

Imagine you are walking down the street and a man walks up and punches the person next to you in the face. The anarchist would argue that if you use force to restrain that person, you are initiating force if it turns out that the man he punched hit him first. Yet that is pure intrinsicism. It is non-objective in the same way that the audience's applause was non-objective. He may be retaliating but you don't know it.

Contrary to Childs, the point is not that individuals are unable to make objective determinations of what constitutes retaliatory force -- it's that objectivity demands they prove it to every other member of society. Only a government can provide such a mechanism. (The anarchist would of course dispute this last claim as well, but the point here isn't to make the case for limited government -- merely to demonstrate that government is not inherently aggressive.)

[Acount Overdrawn]

For the record, while we seem to agree on the larger issue, I have an objection to letting him free. I hate to say [sic]thus, but I think you just accepted Mrocktor's bottom line there.

That's admittedly because I did not completely understand what mrocktor's scenario was (whether it was genuine self-defense where one's life is immediately threatened, or a vigilante action after-the-fact).

I have very little knowledge concerning how legal procedures go. I guess what I'm not understanding here is what happens to a person who uses force (in his mind, it's retaliatory, but has yet to be proved to others), is arrested and tried in a court, and found innocent? Is he not then free to go?

I will state that I'm against what mrocktor is proposing, precisely because any private use of force is unlawful--all such uses would have to be tried by the government.

[Inspector]

There is no context that you can add that ever makes using force against another person moral. At best, you can hope for a judgment of amorality, as in the case of self defense.

So you disagree with Don, then:

Morally, a man has the right to retaliate against those who initiate force. In fact, as Ayn Rand pointed out, assuming he is able to do so, retaliation is a moral imperative. Refusing to retaliate against an aggressor is to sanction his aggression -- and to welcome more of it.

For the record, while we seem to agree on the larger issue, I have an objection to letting him free.

Out of curiosity, then, what do you think of the outcome of Roark's trial?

[Koustubh]

Because it forces you to deny man's nature -- survival by reason, not by force -- in order to survive. This is a fundamental contradiction which cannot be integrated. Since morality is a set of concepts applied rationally to determine a man's actions, any fundamentally contradictory situation is outside of the domain of morality.

But survival by reason includes the use of force when necessary. If a lion attacks a man, would killing the lion be amoral? If not, what is the essential difference between an attack by a lion and an attack by a man. In both cases the only action possible is a resort to force. That the attacking lion cannot reason whereas the attacking man chooses not to reason is not essential.