Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Anarchy and Objectivism

Rate this topic


brandonk2009

Recommended Posts

Okay, I actually have made a mistake here.

Re-reading David's posts, here is the full context of his reply:

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.

I actually believed his statement of the claim of context without checking it thoroughly and I regret posting hastily enough to have done that.

No, David is not from context actually saying "Initiate." He is clearly saying that it is not ever moral to use force - whether one is initiating, retaliating, or acting in self-defense. He says that at best it is amoral.

This is wrong, and that is precisely what I've been trying to get him to see - that neither Don, Rand, or Objectivism agree with his statement. Using force in self-defense is a moral requirement. It is therefore moral and not amoral at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is wrong, and that is precisely what I've been trying to get him to see - that neither Don, Rand, or Objectivism agree with his statement. Using force in self-defense is a moral requirement. It is therefore moral and not amoral at best.

And thus the question: how can an objective legal system punish a man for doing what is right - and being able to prove it?

Either the individual has or he doesn't have a right to retaliate personally. If he does, this right is necessarily valid in the context of society (after all, who would he retaliate against if that were not the context?). Since rights are facts, they do not dissapear the instant someone creates a government, and you can't force an individual to delegate one of his rights "because society needs it" and still call yourself an individualist.

Granting the fact that the individual does have a right to retaliate by force, personally, whether government is available or not, it is easy to realize that this action must be seen by others (personally and as represented by the government) as aggressive, until proven legitimate. Thus rational people would avoid vigilanteism out of self interest (as not to be confused with criminals) and not by force or by a categorical imperative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am bit confused with your post, mrocktor. It looks to me to have a contradiction.

...Since rights are facts, they do not disappear the instant someone creates a government, and you can't force an individual to delegate one of his rights "because society needs it" and still call yourself an individualist.

(My argument (and one presented by Objectivist works, I believe) has been that a society requires a different setting for the existence of an individual. So as long as society is not messed up like Roark's case, one ought not to resort to retaliation by himself.)

Granting the fact that the individual does have a right to retaliate by force, personally, whether government is available or not, it is easy to realize that this action must be seen by others (personally and as represented by the government) as aggressive, until proven legitimate. Thus rational people would avoid vigilantism out of self interest (as not to be confused with criminals) and not by force or by a categorical imperative.
If rational people would avoid "vigilantism out of self interest," do you mean that it would be rational to avoid it (and irrational to resort to it)? Or that it's only optional and only some portion of rational people would choose to avoid it?

Also, do you mean that while it's rational to avoid vigilantism, yet that it's morally bad for a government to punish those who resort to vigilantism anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-reading David's posts, here is the full context of his reply:
Actually it isn't; you need to add the rest of mrocktor's statement, which says "The burden of proof DOES lie with the individual who used force though." As you know, using (yes, I said using) force is immoral if it is not necessary, which in the cases under discussion it is not. You (apparent) claim that a man has the right to act as a vigilante has a snowball's chance only if there is no rule of law, and he is trying to survive under anarchy. The idea of the "burden of proof" makes not a whit of sense under anarchy, so the context that mrocktor is assuming is one where there is law. And then (for mrocktor) you have to look at the circumstances of his vigilantism to see if it is justified or not -- namely, whether his rights were violated by the accused. Mrocktor is claiming that in some cases, in civilized society, an individual has the right to use force retributively. I claim that in no cases, in no context -- within the broader context well enough established in this thread -- is such an act justified.

I understand if you think that using the word "(n)ever" means that you can hit the reset button and drop all context. I probably should have laden my sentence with some decoration like "Keeping the context that we've been discussing all along, of a man using unnecessary retaliatory force, it is never moral for an individual to use such force", so that you wouldn't be confused. Even mrocktor's statement "The burden of proof DOES lie with the individual who used force though", which clearly affirms that he's keeping the context extablished in this discussion, seems not to have been clear enough. Thus are the perils of trying to keep implicit context in mind. I'll try to remember to be more explicit in the future.

The reason why you have failed to get me to "see" that a man has a right to use force in self defense is that I've already said that enough times, and the use of force in self defense is not, repeat, not under discussion. It's irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You (apparent) claim that a man has the right to act as a vigilante has a snowball's chance only if there is no rule of law, and he is trying to survive under anarchy.

I'm not actually claiming that; I was just making inquiries.

I understand if you think that using the word "(n)ever" means that you can hit the reset button and drop all context.

Well, it looks like you're not convinced of my point. But at least we're all clear on each others' meaning now.

And thus the question: how can an objective legal system punish a man for doing what is right - and being able to prove it?

While that is indeed your question, it doesn't follow from my statement which you quoted, since my wording was "self-defense" and not "retaliation."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And thus the question: how can an objective legal system punish a man for doing what is right - and being able to prove it?

Simple: he broke the law. He engaged in vigilantism, and thereby broke the law: he is now a criminal.

What you're proposing in fact appears to be the opposite of the effect of hate crimes. The government has no business lessening the punishment of a crime--or worse, throwing out punishment entirely--simply because the man was acting on ideas that he and the government regard as "right." Just as with hate crimes, the government has no business serving a greater punishment upon a man for acting on "bad ideas." It is not ideas that the government should judge, but actions.

Rather than uphold objectivity, what mrocktor ideas on this leads to are the worst types of subjectivity capable of governments: the role of arbiter over what ideas are acceptable or not.

If a man engages in vigilantism, then he must also accept the consequences of his actions, i.e. the full context, which might include a certain number of years in prison. And in this sense his act of vigilantism is irrational, insofar as his decision to act criminally can have negative effects on his life in the years to come.

A proper government and objective legal system should not simply sit back and allow this man to carry out his version of "justice." Not only should he be restrained, he should be charged for criminal offenses, among them the crime of obstruction of justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. The threat is a violation of rights. No one has a right to make me live under threat.

First of all, I disagree with your statement in the way you put it. Appearing as a threat is not a violation of right in every instance.

When I say threat I mean an actual, existential, objective threat of physical harm. Appearing as such is always a violation of right.

On the other hand, if some action of yours, which was not an objective threat appeared as a threat to someone, then of course - no one's rights have been violated.

I think we are probably on the same page but you'll have to provide a specific example of this as I cannot think of one.

And if you think of one, I imagine that it would argue even more forcefully for delegating the use of retaliatory force to the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and you can't force an individual to delegate one of his rights "because society needs it" and still call yourself an individualist.

This is a mischaracterization. One would not delegate this right "because society needs it", he would do it because the individual needs it in order to live in a civilized society where some men are rational and some are irrational.

Granting the fact that the individual does have a right to retaliate by force, personally, whether government is available or not, it is easy to realize that this action must be seen by others (personally and as represented by the government) as aggressive, until proven legitimate. [emphasis added]

The context is important. If a civilized society is the goal, then a government, to which the objective use of retaliatory force is delegated, is a requirement. (Objective means: relating to reality; and doesn't mean: relating to the individual.) If a government is not available or if the goal is anarchy or socialism, then everything is out the window. In the Wild West I'm sure there were many examples of the legitimate use of retaliatory force, but I wouldn't describe it as civilized.

Also, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the American system is the only legitimate one imagineable. Robert Heinlein formulated a different kind of system in (I think) "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" in which trials are held on the street, paid for by the complainant and adjudicated by professional jurors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple: he broke the law. He engaged in vigilantism, and thereby broke the law: he is now a criminal.

Your answer relays on laws as axiomatic, as replacement of judgement.

The laws does not dictate what is just. The purpose of the law is to reflect what is just. I'm sure you wouldn't say that breaking any law is bad (regardless of whether that law is just or not), why then do you rely on some existing law to answer mrocktor's question?

Observe: Mrocktor asks: "Is it just to have a law by which a man who has done X be punished?" What is your reply? "The law exists. If a man broke it - he should be punished". Can you please explain to me how this is an answer to his question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a mischaracterization. One would not delegate this right "because society needs it", he would do it because the individual needs it in order to live in a civilized society where some men are rational and some are irrational.

Good reply. But - it is not the only rational option - to delegate one's right of self-defense to the government. Why do you assume it is?

One can live in a society in which there is objective law protected by the government, but in which people are free by law to exercise their right of self-defense so long as it's rational. which means basically acting like a cop. But then they would have to prove the justification and objectivity of every action.

does this necessarily create chaos? No. This is not a legal permit for people to use unrestrained force against one another, nor to execute "justice" as they see fit. This only gives permission to a person not to delegate his right of self-defense, so long as this right is being exercised in an objective, rational manner (which, in our context, is reflected and determined by the law).

I have a question for whoever happen to know the answer: Is a police officer allowed to act based on the evidence of his own eyes, which he cannot present to anyone else? Is there a further context needed to answer this question? (such as emergency situation as oppose to a long-term investigation)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question for whoever happen to know the answer: Is a police officer allowed to act based on the evidence of his own eyes, which he cannot present to anyone else? Is there a further context needed to answer this question? (such as emergency situation as oppose to a long-term investigation)

This might be what you are thinking of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

In United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search or obtain a warrant....

The most widely held common definition would be "a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can live in a society in which there is objective law protected by the government, but in which people are free by law to exercise their right of self-defense so long as it's rational. which means basically acting like a cop. But then they would have to prove the justification and objectivity of every action.

does this necessarily create chaos? No. This is not a legal permit for people to use unrestrained force against one another, nor to execute "justice" as they see fit. This only gives permission to a person not to delegate his right of self-defense, so long as this right is being exercised in an objective, rational manner (which, in our context, is reflected and determined by the law).

I think at this point in the discussion it would be good to bring in some concrete example of how this would work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good reply. But - it is not the only rational option - to delegate one's right of self-defense to the government. Why do you assume it is?

Well, thank you but I try never to assume. I have given this issue some thought but I am open to persuasion. Propose another option and we can evaluate it. I have said that I am open to different forms of justice though their function should be the same: to render a civilized society which protects the individual rights of the rational and the irrational alike.

One can live in a society in which there is objective law protected by the government, but in which people are free by law to exercise their right of self-defense so long as it's rational. which means basically acting like a cop. But then they would have to prove the justification and objectivity of every action.

You have to be very careful here, what we are talking about is retaliatory force after the fact, I think David called it retributive force. No one has suggested relinquishing the right to self defense, in fact it has been definitively stated otherwise. And yes, this (self defense) is what a cop does whenever he draws his weapon.

But then they would have to prove the justification and objectivity of every action.

Yes, and I contend that that proof must come before retaliation can objectively take place. There must be some kind of system in which the rules are known ahead of time. I paraphrased one, and again, I am open to suggestions.

************************

P.S. to David:

I must admit I also found your statement, that it is never moral to use force, to be confusing since, as you can see, not everybody was on board with our understanding of self defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please explain to me how this is an answer to his question?

Why are you ignoring the rest of my post? I thought that was really where I got into the meat of the issue. I'll repeat it, so you can read it over again:

What you're [mrocktor] proposing in fact appears to be the opposite of the effect of hate crimes. The government has no business lessening the punishment of a crime--or worse, throwing out punishment entirely--simply because the man was acting on ideas that he and the government regard as "right." Just as with hate crimes, the government has no business serving a greater punishment upon a man for acting on "bad ideas." It is not ideas that the government should judge, but actions.

Rather than uphold objectivity, what mrocktor ideas on this leads to are the worst types of subjectivity capable of governments: the role of arbiter over what ideas are acceptable or not.

If a man engages in vigilantism, then he must also accept the consequences of his actions, i.e. the full context, which might include a certain number of years in prison. And in this sense his act of vigilantism is irrational, insofar as his decision to act criminally can have negative effects on his life in the years to come.

A proper government and objective legal system should not simply sit back and allow this man to carry out his version of "justice." Not only should he be restrained, he should be charged for criminal offenses, among them the crime of obstruction of justice.

And I completely stand by this. A person can factually act on his idea of what's right, but if his action is criminal, then he should be restrained and charged, just as a man who factually acts on ideas which we think to be wrong, such as robbery.

The government's task amounts to allowing people to peacefully co-exist amongst others--this is impossible if people run around carrying out their own personal vendettas, all the while screaming to the cops "But I can prove my act was just!"

Since the government has the lawful power to use retaliatory force, any unauthorized private act of force is unlawful, including acts of vigilantism. If the guy really is a vigilante, and someone has violated his rights in some way, then the vigilante is obstructing justice by retaliating upon that criminal, since it is for the justice system to determine the criminal's guilt, not private citizens, and especially not someone partial (biased) to the incident, such as the originally wronged victim.

"Your answer relays on laws as axiomatic, as replacement of judgement."

My answer pertains to what the government should do. The members of government should only act on their judgment when their political decisions are in line with the laws. The laws should be the only motive power of the government; a judgment is something a person has a right to, but the government can only act on permission, on what has already been codified in laws.

And let's please assume we're discussing a proper government with an objective legal framework, since you seemed to question whether I would accept any law a government could make as "just"; of course I don't.

So my revised answer to mrocktor's question is:

Yes, it is just to have such a law, because the vigilante's actions obstruct the objective method of determining guilt. A man has no way of presenting his proof of his use of force being retaliatory in nature, neither before the act of vigilantism happens, nor during such an act. Such a proof cannot be carried out by the vigilante, because of the sheer number of tasks and impartiality involved in the objective means of determining if an act of force is retaliatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, Ayn Rand's formulation of a proper government, was a government who had a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force. The only role of government is to retaliate against those individuals that initiate force. If the government's only position is to retaliate against force, instead of initiate force how is it a violation of the individual?

I know she used that definition, but it's improper, both in objective standards and in how I believe she understood the matter. The proper role of government is as the supreme authority on the legitimacy of the use of force. It is the ultimate judge, with the force necessary to back up its judgements. No government on earth holds (or should hold) a monopoly on the retaliation against force. Government is a means to protect individuals, by applying the due process of law to the use of force, against retaliation. That's something people have trouble understanding, the reason for the due process of law is NOT to protect the person being accused, it is to protect the accusers against retaliation for enforcing the law, by making clear that they were in the right.

Edited by andre_sanchez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it the role of the government to gather enough evidence to show that the man did not act by the standard of law, or do they have the right to arrest him and demand that he proves it, and justification for arrest would be that he "took justice into his own hands"?

I don't see how taking justice into one's hands is initiation of force against anyone. So in my understanding it is the government's job to prove first that the man did not act properly. Just taking the law to his own hands is not enough. What do you think?

If you "take justice in your own hands" you are commiting an act of violence (justified or not).

Now, imagine you are walking down the street and an old lady grabs your wallet. You then try to take it back by force. A bystander that did not witness her crime would be justified in assuming that -you- are the aggressor, and thus act accordingly. However, if he breaks up the fight and tries to punish you for your "crime", and then you tell him "look at the documents in the wallet, it's mine!", and he confirms this, then it is clear that you were not commiting a crime, she was, the one to be punished is her and not you. The bystander can be, at times, the government.

I know she used that definition, but it's improper, both in objective standards and in how I believe she understood the matter. The proper role of government is as the supreme authority on the legitimacy of the use of force. It is the ultimate judge, with the force necessary to back up its judgements. No government on earth holds (or should hold) a monopoly on the retaliation against force. Government is a means to protect individuals, by applying the due process of law to the use of force, against retaliation. That's something people have trouble understanding, the reason for the due process of law is NOT to protect the person being accused, it is to protect the accusers against retaliation for enforcing the law, by making clear that they were in the right.

To back up my claim that she understood government in this way, I think The Fountainhead is a clear example. Howard retaliated against fraud on the part of the builders with a particularly violent act, he did not "sue" them. However, when it came down to it, the government (as in, the jury) freed him because it determined that his use of -retaliatory- force was justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, do you mean that while it's rational to avoid vigilantism, yet that it's morally bad for a government to punish those who resort to vigilantism anyway?

This is what I mean. Just as it is irrational to be religious, or to be a slacker or to do anything else that is of actual or potential harm to yourself. As long as it harms only yourself, or in other words, as long as no one's rights are violated, he government should do nothing.

And thus the critical issue. When someone "takes justice into their own hands" they do not necessarily violate rights. If their acts are against the true criminal, and are adequate to the crime (as defined by the law), they have not violated anyone's rights. The criminal gave up his rights by commiting the crime.

But not every vigilante will be a rational one, in fact most will not. Those who cannot prove their acts were rightful must be treated as criminals.

Simple: he broke the law. He engaged in vigilantism, and thereby broke the law: he is now a criminal.

See, this is your problem. It is not breaking the law that makes something a crime, it is violating individual rights.

he would do it because the individual needs it in order to live in a civilized society where some men are rational and some are irrational.

No, he would do it because you propose to force him to. You are not giving him the option, don't dare pretend you are. Either he has a choice or he doesn't. I'm defending that he have the choice, and bear the consequences. You are defending that he have that choice taken away by force of government. This line must be kept clear in this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is your problem. It is not breaking the law that makes something a crime, it is violating individual rights.

I think, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, that what they are saying is that living under law is an individual right. Which is to say, it is a requirement for man's life in a social context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is your problem. It is not breaking the law that makes something a crime, it is violating individual rights.

Please see my post, #89.

Further, how is vigilantism, the explicit private and unauthorized use of force, not a threat to everyone else's lives (i.e. a violation of their rights)?

Regarding their use of force, how are vigilantes any different from criminals whom are initiating force upon victims? I can't think of one difference.

And if my understanding of the concept "crime" is correct, then it only applies in a legal context, not necessarily in the entire social/political context. So yes, breaking the law is what makes an action a crime. Though I'm not denying non-objective crimes, just as I don't deny non-objective laws.

Edited by Acount Overdrawn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he would do it because you propose to force him to.

Only in the same way as I "force" other law abiding citizens not to use force, which is: not at all.

You are not giving him the option, don't dare pretend you are.

OK, as long as you don't pretend that you are talking about a civilized society, you are talking about anarchy.

I'm defending that he have the choice, and bear the consequences.

By allowing him to have the choice you are forcing the rest of us to bear the consequences of living in anarchy as you admit here:

But not every vigilante will be a rational one, in fact most will not.

When someone "takes justice into their own hands" they do not necessarily violate rights.

Just most of the time right?

If their acts are against the true criminal, and are adequate to the crime (as defined by the law), they have not violated anyone's rights. The criminal gave up his rights by commiting the crime.

The criminal gives up his rights once it is proven that he committed the crime. Does the accused have the right of trial by jury?

It is not an objective form of justice to have one person act as victim, complainant, DA, judge and jury. And then to act as executioner before he has proven his case.

Imagine a society where a bunch of irrational vigilantes are running around shooting people. How would the pursuit of happiness be affected for the rest of us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what they are saying is that living under law is an individual right. Which is to say, it is a requirement for man's life in a social context.

Which is equivocation, since we are not discussing having multiple laws, we are discussing whether an individual has a right to enforce that law himself, or whether it is collective agreement that makes law enforcement objective.

Further, how is vigilantism, the explicit private and unauthorized use of force, not a threat to everyone else's lives (i.e. a violation of their rights)?

Because it is directed against criminals. When it is not, I agree that it is a crime. An unsubtle difference.

Regarding their use of force, how are vigilantes any different from criminals whom are initiating force upon victims? I can't think of one difference.

They are retaliating against people who commited crimes against them - as is their right. Another unsubtle difference.

And if my understanding of the concept "crime" is correct, then it only applies in a legal context, not necessarily in the entire social/political context. So yes, breaking the law is what makes an action a crime. Though I'm not denying non-objective crimes, just as I don't deny non-objective laws.

Crime means "a violation of individual rights". If your definition of "crime" is "something that breaks the law", what is your concept for the former?

Only in the same way as I "force" other law abiding citizens not to use force, which is: not at all.

This is not true. There is a crucial difference between forbiding the initiation of force and forbidding retaliatory force. The first is never proper, the second may be.

It is not an objective form of justice to have one person act as victim, complainant, DA, judge and jury. And then to act as executioner before he has proven his case.

That would depend on whether that one person used reason or not, wouldn't it? Objectivity does not come from collective approval, nor from written procedures. Objectivity comes from the use of reason. The government's structure and procedures are means to that end, not the end in themselves. Here you are denying that an individual is capable of objective action, that only the collective can objectively enact justice - which cuts objective philosophy off at the knee.

Imagine a society where a bunch of irrational vigilantes are running around shooting people. How would the pursuit of happiness be affected for the rest of us?

No, I won't imagine. I'm not a pragmatist, such imagination would be irrelevant to my argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a pragmatist, such imagination would be irrelevant to my argument.
I'm curious what that means. I've heard this denial from any people, and I don't understand what it means to say "I'm not a pragmatist" or why that statement has any force, as a response to Marc's argument. What exactly is it that you're trying to avoid?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is equivocation, since we are not discussing having multiple laws, we are discussing whether an individual has a right to enforce that law himself, or whether it is collective agreement that makes law enforcement objective.

What you mean is that the vigilante in your view ought to be subject to the evaluation of a court of law, inasmuch as the court would have to decide if his actions were in fact just. I think the others are acting like you're saying that the vigilante would not be arrestable, whereas it seems to me that you are saying he would be - just that he might ultimately be acquitted.

Please correct me if I have you wrong here... (or confirm if I have you right)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm not a pragmatist" or why that statement has any force, as a response to Marc's argument.

It comes, ironically, from arguing extensively with anarchists. An "argument" in the form "imagine the consequences of X. See, those consequences are bad. X is therefore wrong" hinges on each person's power of imagination. It is not a real argument (though sometimes a useful thought experiment).

Obviously Marc thinks a society where the right to use retaliatiory force is recognized would devolve into chaos. Obviously I do not. We can argue all day about what each of us thinks would happen - but since we would be arguing about conjecture, and not about facts, it would lead nowhere.

What you mean is that the vigilante in your view ought to be subject to the evaluation of a court of law, inasmuch as the court would have to decide if his actions were in fact just. I think the others are acting like you're saying that the vigilante would not be arrestable, whereas it seems to me that you are saying he would be - just that he might ultimately be acquitted.

You are correct. I have written that explicitly.

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An "argument" in the form "imagine the consequences of X. See, those consequences are bad. X is therefore wrong" hinges on each person's power of imagination. It is not a real argument (though sometimes a useful thought experiment).
Then your objection seems to be just that you deny that legalism vigilantism would lead to a significant destruction of man's ability to survive qua man. You're not rejecting the validity of the "If all hell breaks loose then this should be prevented by the government" reasoning, you're objecting to the presumption that all hell would break loose. If you did conclude that all hell would break loose, then you'd have to accept the correctness of the Objectivism force-monopoly position. Right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...