Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Anarchy and Objectivism

Rate this topic


brandonk2009

Recommended Posts

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.
(emphasis added by me)

It is true that an act of force which was not first proven to be an act of retaliation is a threat to those who were not given evidence (a potential threat - not a violation of rights). But for the one who uses it (and knows that it is retaliatory) it is the contrary - it is practicing self defense. If a person can later prove that he was acting justly, there is no reason to ignore it, and to send him to jail anyway, just because he did not prove it before acting. It places the burden to prove to others above one's self-defense. I see no justification to demand that a person act based on the knowledge that others hold (or knowledge that he can provide to others). A person should act based on the knowledge he holds. If you put him in jail simply for acting by his own knowledge as oppose the knowledge he provided to society you are treating society as a higher value than a man, saying that he is not allowed to act based on what he knows, until he makes sure others know it too.

On the other hand, a person cannot expect others to let him do as he pleases simply because they have no access to what he knows: they, like him, can act in self-defense based only on what they know. Therefore, evidence must be supplied to justify an act of force - but this does not necessitates having to supply it before retaliation.

Like the article says - "a man who initiates force is by that fact a threat to society" - but if the man can prove that he did not initiate force (but retaliated) - on what grounds will you put him in jail? On the grounds that he appears as a threat before providing evidence? appearing as a threat at some point in time is not a violation of anyone's rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But survival by reason includes the use of force when necessary.
This is true: and it's essential to pay attention to the end of your statement -- when necessary. When a man lives in a civilized, law-governed society, it is not necessary to use retaliatory force. That is the essential difference between defensive force and retaliatory force.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that an act of force which was not first proven to be an act of retaliation is a threat to those who were not given evidence (a potential threat - not a violation of rights).

[...]

appearing as a threat at some point in time is not a violation of anyone's rights.

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

On the other hand, a person cannot expect others to let him do as he pleases simply because they have no access to what he knows: they, like him, can act in self-defense based only on what they know. Therefore, evidence must be supplied to justify an act of force - but this does not necessitates having to supply it before retaliation.

Like the article says - "a man who initiates force is by that fact a threat to society" - but if the man can prove that he did not initiate force (but retaliated) - on what grounds will you put him in jail? On the grounds that he appears as a threat before providing evidence?

In a civilized society the evidence must be supplied, in an objective manner, before retaliation takes place. Otherwise you wind up in the situation where a man shoots the person standing next to me for what may be a legitimate reason of which I am unaware. Since he is an objective threat to me, I pull out my gun and shoot him, which in your scenario I would be justified in doing. Does this sound civilized?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you disagree with Don, then:
I find that I agree with what he says right after that:
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.
At some point, we might try to determine whether Don believe that it is immoral for a man to renounce the use of physical force and delegate to the government his right of physical self-defense; that when a man feels certain that someone has violated his rights, he must use force to recover his property and funish the miscreant, and should not leave that to the government. I suspect that he does not believe that, and thus I doubt that we disagree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a man lives in a civilized, law-governed society, it is not necessary to use retaliatory force.

This is not true. It remains necessary to use retaliatory force. It becomes optional to use force personally, which I assume is what you meant. The fact that the individual has the possibility of delegating this use of force in a lawful society does not in itself create an imperative that he do so. Your conclusion does not follow.

a man shoots the person standing next to me for what may be a legitimate reason of which I am unaware. Since he is an objective threat to me, I pull out my gun and shoot him, which in your scenario I would be justified in doing. Does this sound civilized?

Yes. Except for the criminal, all the actors are behaving according to their best judgment. The criminal is stopped. The innocent who used poor judgment got shot, you acted rationally based on what you knew and would be considered innocent for shooting him.

Remember, rational objective law is NOT meant to guarantee that people will make good choices nor that they are free from those choices' consequences - only to protect innocents. In this case, your system is only protecting a man from himself. Precisely what it should NOT do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It becomes optional to use force personally, which I assume is what you meant.
No, I meant that it it not optional for a man, personally, to use force; that it is mandatory if and only if it is necessary for him, personally, to do so. That is, what I said, with the clarification "for him".
The fact that the individual has the possibility of delegating this use of force in a lawful society does not in itself create an imperative that he do so.
The fact that delegation of the right to use force is mandatory does, indeed, not not follow from "possibility". It follows from the nature of government and civilization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Except for the criminal, all the actors are behaving according to their best judgment. The criminal is stopped. The innocent who used poor judgment got shot, you acted rationally based on what you knew and would be considered innocent for shooting him.

It doesn't sound just or civilized to me when an innocent man is shot and no one is punished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a person can later prove that he was acting justly, there is no reason to ignore it, and to send him to jail anyway, just because he did not prove it before acting.

I'd still like to know from DavidOdden if he would not let a man go free if his case is brought to a court of law and he is found innocent. I don't see any reason to hold him any longer, but perhaps David could elaborate.

I see no justification to demand that a person act based on the knowledge that others hold (or knowledge that he can provide to others). A person should act based on the knowledge he holds. If you put him in jail simply for acting by his own knowledge as oppose the knowledge he provided to society you are treating society as a higher value than a man, saying that he is not allowed to act based on what he knows, until he makes sure others know it too.

Morally, a person should act on his knowledge. But the government serves not just that person, but all citizens within a given region. No matter whether the person is acting on his knowledge, or acting on the knowledge that others hold, as soon as he uses force, he becomes a threat to everyone else, and must be restrained by the government. But there's something else I'd like to address here:

Therefore, evidence must be supplied to justify an act of force - but this does not necessitates having to supply it before retaliation.

You seem to be missing something about how to establish the "objective means" of determining when an act of force is retaliatory:

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.

These objective means demonstrate that there is no way for a person to supply evidence for his use of force before his act of retaliation, and certainly not during his retaliation. Determining whether an act of force was retaliatory necessitates that it has already occurred, so that others can know what force was used, and what evidence is in the particular case, etc. The person who uses force, even in retaliation, has no means of proving that his use of force was retaliatory: such a complex task is up to people like district attorneys (or higher), crime scene investigators, police officers, eye-witnesses, lawyers, judges who are all following objective rules and laws; in other words: such a task is up to a justice system, i.e. the government (with its many derivative functions and capacities). Until such a proof is established, the person must be restrained in order to protect the citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd still like to know from DavidOdden if he would not let a man go free if his case is brought to a court of law and he is found innocent. I don't see any reason to hold him any longer, but perhaps David could elaborate.
You would have to look at the reasons for him taking the law into his own hands. So I'm not taking the notion of the government monopoly on retaliatory force and the rule of objective law to be an optional niceity. If an individual is allowed to use force against a person that he suspect as long as the suspect is later convicted in court, then the individual can hire any bunch of thugs to do the same thing, and we have enforcement-anarchy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't sound just or civilized to me when an innocent man is shot and no one is punished.
Yeah, this sounds crazy. And it's very easy to extend the case to whole groups instead of single individuals.

What about 2 large groups (group A and group B ) opening fire on each other? Because group A saw group B fire on a person (who earlier shot somebody unjustly from group B ) from group A. Then you have members of group A thinking that this group is attacking them (this case can easily be made so that it's objectively clear to group A that is so), and thus responding with fire. Most people are killed, and most of those killed were innocent.

Is this a civil society? No. It's also a good example for showcase how the standard for objectivity in society differs from living outside of society (as noted in "Epistemological Anarchy").

And this is much beyond "threat" (as Ifatart proposed). This is a violation of rights. No person may place another person to live in such conditions as constant legal threat of such events. Existence of laws don't remove such cases altogether, of course, but it definitely does not propose a case where such group shooting event would be legal. Just imagine if/when such case happens and somebody who survived gets to go free (for example, b/c he shot the guy who actually committed crime). This would give encouragement to the rest of people to open fire, and you would have such group shooting regularly.

It is true that an act of force which was not first proven to be an act of retaliation is a threat to those who were not given evidence (a potential threat - not a violation of rights).

What I don't get is how is this not a violation of my rights, when I go through the streets and must accept that such groups can start shooting each other legally around my path?

Hell, I can imagine one of them thinking I'm their enemy b/c the group they are fighting are wearing the same clothes as I do, and the dude who suddenly ran to the corner for cover and bumps into me and sees I'm wearing the same stuff, panics and shoots me in a head.

Or, some group is doing their own legal retaliation and spraying bullets all around my neighborhood.

Even if something like this doesn't happen, the psychological pressure would be huge on me. Adding more people whom I love/care about makes the whole environment even worse.

I would like to see a complete argument how placing me in such environment is not a violation of my rights when it's clear that it wouldn't be possible for me to thrive as a human using reason. (Or show how it would be possible for me through rational means to thrive in such environment anyway, because if this can't be shown then by definition it's a violation of my right to life.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't get is how is this not a violation of my rights, when I go through the streets and must accept that such groups can start shooting each other legally around my path?

Hell, I can imagine one of them thinking I'm their enemy b/c the group they are fighting are wearing the same clothes as I do, and the dude who suddenly ran to the corner for cover and bumps into me and sees I'm wearing the same stuff, panics and shoots me in a head.

Or, some group is doing their own legal retaliation and spraying bullets all around my neighborhood.

Oh, this one is easy to answer. The group are not legally permitted to start shooting each other across the street. Nor was this indicated in anything I have proposed so far.

If one of them thinks you are their enemy and shoots you, they have not acted justly, nor according to law, and they should pay. Similarly your scenario of retaliation by spreading bullets - not legal as well. And again, nothing I said indicates that such a thing should be permitted by law.

I said that if a man uses retaliatory force for self-defense justly, AND can provide evidence for it, then society has no right to punish him simply because he chose his own means of self-defense (and not the police).

What you are proposing I said is that as long as a person was sure that they acted justly, they should not be punished. That's not what I said. I said if they ACTED justly and can prove it - no punishment. Not if they THINK they acted justly - no punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said that if a man uses retaliatory force for self-defense justly, AND can provide evidence for it, then society has no right to punish him simply because he chose his own means of self-defense (and not the police).
Did you really mean that? That is remarkably weak, if so. For example, if my watch gets stolen, and I've heard that Jones who had no watch previously suddenly starts sporting the same brand of watch that I lost, then I have evidence that Jones stole my watch -- so I get to brutalize Jones and the government has no right to punish me for this initiation of force. I'm surprised that you would advocate this, unless you simply don't understand the consequences of your position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would have to look at the reasons for him taking the law into his own hands. So I'm not taking the notion of the government monopoly on retaliatory force and the rule of objective law to be an optional niceity. If an individual is allowed to use force against a person that he suspect as long as the suspect is later convicted in court, then the individual can hire any bunch of thugs to do the same thing, and we have enforcement-anarchy.

I understand what you've said here, but maybe my understanding of how self-defense is treated in a court of law (and why it is treated in that way) is insufficient for this discussion.

I'm fine with the person who used self-defense being restrained, because the situation needs to be sorted out, but do you think he should be given criminal charges as well? And if so, which ones?

I'm not sure whether I really disagree with you or not here, because I've never considered this aspect of self-defense in any depth. Any elaboration on how self-defense should be treated legally would be helpful.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with the person who used self-defense being restrained, because the situation needs to be sorted out, but do you think he should be given criminal charges as well? And if so, which ones?
It's really important to keep the self-defense question separate from the vigilantism question. In that other thread, I pointed to the Texas justification law as a good statement of justified use of force in an emergency. Here, we're talking about non-emergency vigilantism, where a man takes it upon himself to act as judge, jury and executioner because he know or feels he know that someone violated his rights (or the rights of a friend or client), and rather than letting the legal system hand out justice, he decides to hand out his brand of justice. Nobody is demanding that you roll over and take a beating if you're assaulted; I'm saying that it you're assaulted, you can't hire a gang of thugs to beat the crap out of the guy, no matter how good your proof is, you have to take your proof to the courts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really important to keep the self-defense question separate from the vigilantism question. In that other thread, I pointed to the Texas justification law as a good statement of justified use of force in an emergency. Here, we're talking about non-emergency vigilantism, where a man takes it upon himself to act as judge, jury and executioner because he know or feels he know that someone violated his rights (or the rights of a friend or client), and rather than letting the legal system hand out justice, he decides to hand out his brand of justice. Nobody is demanding that you roll over and take a beating if you're assaulted; I'm saying that it you're assaulted, you can't hire a gang of thugs to beat the crap out of the guy, no matter how good your proof is, you have to take your proof to the courts.

Ah, non-emergency vigilantism. I agree with you then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that I agree with what he says right after that:At some point, we might try to determine whether Don believe that it is immoral for a man to renounce the use of physical force and delegate to the government his right of physical self-defense; that when a man feels certain that someone has violated his rights, he must use force to recover his property and funish the miscreant, and should not leave that to the government. I suspect that he does not believe that, and thus I doubt that we disagree.

You didn't answer the question. You said:

There is no context that you can add that ever makes using force against another person moral.

David: you did not say "initiating," there. You said "using." There is NO context that EVER making USING force against another person moral. That is what I am focusing on. I am trying to determine if you meant that or if you misspoke. Because using force against another person in self-defense is most definitely moral. Don said that according to Ayn Rand it is in fact a moral imperative. So right there is a context that I can add that makes, as you said, using force against another person moral.

And also what did you think of the outcome of Roark's trial?

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you really mean that? That is remarkably weak, if so. For example, if my watch gets stolen, and I've heard that Jones who had no watch previously suddenly starts sporting the same brand of watch that I lost, then I have evidence that Jones stole my watch -- so I get to brutalize Jones and the government has no right to punish me for this initiation of force. I'm surprised that you would advocate this, unless you simply don't understand the consequences of your position.

Yeah, I'd be surprised if I advocated this as well. That is not evidence, unless you treat 'evidence' as something subjective, which I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't answer the question.
I did, but I suppose you didn't understand the answer. I do not disagree with Don; Don does not advocate a person using unnecessary vigilante force. You've simply misunderstood Don. It is morally imperative for the government to seek just retribution against a rights violator -- that is the function of government. The fact that it is morally imperative for the government to fo its job does not mean that it is morally imperative for an individual to act as a vigilante.
And also what did you think of the outcome of Roark's trial?
It seemed like the right result. But I don't see how that is relevant here. Being an ego(t)ist is not a wrong for which a man should be punished. Recall the earlier suit by Stoddard against Roark, which also establishes important social and legal context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did, but I suppose you didn't understand the answer. I do not disagree with Don; Don does not advocate a person using unnecessary vigilante force. You've simply misunderstood Don. It is morally imperative for the government to seek just retribution against a rights violator -- that is the function of government. The fact that it is morally imperative for the government to fo its job does not mean that it is morally imperative for an individual to act as a vigilante.It seemed like the right result. But I don't see how that is relevant here. Being an ego(t)ist is not a wrong for which a man should be punished. Recall the earlier suit by Stoddard against Roark, which also establishes important social and legal context.

I just want to put my two cents in on this, to see if I can offer clarity.

When Don, and presumably Ayn Rand, say that retaliation is morally imperative for a man, they do not mean in the context of society. The context seems to be a group of men who loosely deal with each other or some type of commune. In a society, where a man lives among others, the retaliatory use of force is not morally imperative, in the sense that he must be the one to use it; in respect for others and the willingness to live peacefully, he should let the government handle the situation. So here, I agree with DavidOdden in that it is not morally imperative for an individual to act as a vigilante, but only in the context of society, where he can live peacefully and delegate his right to retaliatory force.

I'll go into more detail, if that's unclear.

Edited by Acount Overdrawn
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.

I've been thinking all day about this. I don't have a satisfying answer yet.

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. Only in special instances (which is what got me thinking some more), like holding an empty gun to someone's face which is obviously a violation of his right to life and pursuit of happiness. 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.

So, assuming you've read OPAR ch. 5, you misspoke and you meant "proof", not "evidence".

Arrg, yes. I meant "proof", not "evidence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did, but I suppose you didn't understand the answer. I do not disagree with Don; Don does not advocate a person using unnecessary vigilante force.

No, you misunderstand my question. My question had nothing to do with vigilante force.

You said:

There is no context that you can add that ever makes using force against another person moral.

David: you did not say "vigilante," there. You said "force." There is NO context that EVER making using ANY force against another person moral. That is what I am focusing on. I am trying to determine if you meant that or if you misspoke. Because using force against another person in self-defense is not a vigilante act and is most definitely moral. Don said that according to Ayn Rand it is in fact a moral imperative. So right there is a context that I can add that makes, as you said, using force against another person moral.

As for Roark's trial, it seems that it is precisely what your opponents here are talking about. He took the law into his own hands to reclaim his property. He was then exonerated at trial. Or did you have an alternate explanation for what happened? (I don't mean that facetiously)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David: you did not say "vigilante," there.
That's true. I was relying on context, just as Don did and as Rand did. You'll generally find that it's not typically necessary to repeat the whole context in uttering a sentence, but yes, it would be necessary to repeat all that, if one were to drop context.
As for Roark's trial, it seems that it is precisely what your opponents here are talking about.
Clearly not: everybody here is talking about the context where one can receive justice by appealing to the courts. I think the absurd legal context of AS has to be applied to Fountainhead, which is why Stoddard prevailed. Pay attention to the arguments used against Roark -- that establishes the true nature of the trial. When you're faced with a truly arbitrary dictatorship with kangaroo courts, things change. We're not talking about justice in North Korea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[EDIT: I have actually re-read David's statements, and most of this post does not actually apply. I am leaving it up, however, as it does highlight something that I wish David would stop doing - even if that isn't exactly what happened here. For details, please see my second post, below this one.]

That's true. I was relying on context, just as Don did and as Rand did. You'll generally find that it's not typically necessary to repeat the whole context in uttering a sentence, but yes, it would be necessary to repeat all that, if one were to drop context.

I don't think context excuses speaking imprecisely. That and the "It is never moral to use force against a person." statement that you made did cause several posters including myself to begin questioning those statements as they stand, and the thing is that you made absolutely zero efforts to clarify or explicitly delimit your statements. You just expected, as you seem to expect now, that it is self-evident that despite the obvious meaning of your statements on their face, that everyone will know from context that you didn't mean them in the way that they stand on their face. This despite at least three objections in this thread in which the objector is most decidedly not knowing that you meant them that way.

See, you do this a lot. I don't know if you think it's clever or what, but it's just irritating. When someone misunderstands you in a way that you can see and grasp, you should seek to correct the understanding, not to continue forward on the idea that they ought to have understood you and that it isn't your job to clarify and to, in a mocking way, continue forward with the discussion without correcting their misunderstanding - just letting them keep assuming that you meant what they thought. Like that will accomplish anything productive.

Now, see, unlike the other posters, I am not working under the assumption that you meant what you said. I could tell from context and from your other posts on this board that you likely did not mean what you said. But that does not change the fact that you did say it. Those words have a specific meaning: "It is never moral to use force against a person." If you want to say something else, then you shouldn't use those exact words, even if from your context some people can tell that you don't mean what you say.

After all, if I were to make a statement condemning "selfishness" or encouraging "sacrifice," can this be excused if you can tell from context that I actually mean unprincipled, short-range predatory thinking in the former case, or the trade of a lesser value for a greater value in the latter case? No, because one ought to say what one means. And if someone asks me if I meant what I said, it wouldn't be proper to chastise him for not paying attention to the context. The proper response would be for me to say, "I am sorry - no, I shouldn't have said 'sacrifice' when I meant trade."

So, David, what I am looking to hear from you is: "I am sorry - I shouldn't have said 'It is never moral to use force against a person' when I meant, 'It is never moral to initiate force against a person,' and I shouldn't have said, 'There is no context that you can add that ever makes using force against another person moral,' when I meant 'There is no context that you can add that ever makes initiating force against another person moral.'"

But it's up to you whether you will say that or not, and if not then really don't bother replying.

Edited by Inspector
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...