Is it moral to kill people who are ideologically dangerous?

[SD26]

How come I understand perfectly (and have understood before this argument even started) that you both think eminent domain is immoral, but a reality?

It is something that occurs. Doesn't make it moral at all. Certainly doesn't mean that I must accept it. Others accept it as part of their "obligation as part of 'society'".

[shadesofgrey]

If the mention of justice (in "just compensation"), to you, clearly implies that private property can be taken by force, in exchange for the amount of money the person doing the taking decides to pay, you have an odd view of justice.

The downside of your definition of justice is of course that I can wire the market value of you house into your account tomorrow, and throw you out by next week. By your own definition of justice, you would not have any moral claim to further justice: you will have been justly compensated.

I, on the other hand, think that just compensation is that which the owner is asking for his property.

*sigh*

Let me quote Grames emphatically: "Can you please get straight the distinction between identifying what is and what ought to be?"

I'm not IN FAVOR OF any of the things I'm typing. I don't AGREE with them. I think they're WRONG. I'm just saying that is the justification that's USED (by bad people ) when illegal seizure takes place. I didn't WRITE it, I was quoting it directly. It's pretty clearly worded.

SO IT'S NOT MY DEFINITION OF JUSTICE.

I'd also like to quote SD26 because I second his motion: "It is something that occurs. Doesn't make it moral at all. Certainly doesn't mean that I must accept it. Others accept it as part of their "obligation as part of 'society'."

Edited July 2, 2009 by shadesofgrey

[Jake_Ellison]

*sigh*

Let me quote Grames emphatically: "Can you please get straight the distinction between identifying what is and what ought to be?"

I'm not IN FAVOR OF any of the things I'm typing. I don't AGREE with them. I think they're WRONG. I'm just saying that is the justification that's USED (by bad people ) when illegal seizure takes place. I didn't WRITE it, I was quoting it directly. It's pretty clearly worded.

SO IT'S NOT MY DEFINITION OF JUSTICE.

I'd also like to quote SD26 because I second his motion: "It is something that occurs. Doesn't make it moral at all. Certainly doesn't mean that I must accept it. Others accept it as part of their "obligation as part of 'society'."

It obviously never says contracts are void anywhere, BUT "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" clearly implies that private property CAN be taken for public use.

The Constitution is unambiguously calling for Justice. (that's what just means: according to Justice). You have very clearly, and unambiguously interpreted that call for Justice to mean that "property CAN be taken away". How am I missing anything? Did you not mean that sentence, stating that "just compensation" implies permission to steal?

If you think it's not OK to steal, then there's a flaw in your logic, while interpreting the Constitution. Someone who doesn't think it's just to steal, should not think the call for "just compensation" implies permission to steal.

[shadesofgrey]

The Constitution is unambiguously calling for Justice. (that's what just means: according to Justice). You have very clearly, and unambiguously interpreted that call for Justice to mean that "property CAN be taken away". How am I missing anything? Did you not mean that sentence, stating that "just compensation" implies permission to steal?

If you think it's not OK to steal, then there's a flaw in your logic, while interpreting the Constitution. Someone who doesn't think it's just to steal, should not think the call for "just compensation" implies permission to steal.

Ahhh.......I see the problem. It's a combination of syntax and point of reference. Here it is:

- I should have put "just compensation" in quotes to represent that I was saying it sarcastically. The writers of the constitution obviously thought that they were acting in the interest of justice when writing the document. So from THEIR frame of reference, the government gives you what IT thinks is the market value for your property and out you go.

- My PERSONAL opinion is that if you don't want to get rid of your property, no one should be able to MAKE you, for any reason. The compensation at this point is irrelevant because you're leaving by force, not by choice. It goes back to the old guy with the small house by the beach. If his house is priceless to HIM, then no amount of money will compensate him for its loss.

- I also think that "stealing" isn't limited to specifically taking something, it can represent an unfair exchange by force. I could take a woman's wedding ring off of a sink where she left it and leave $5000, but it's hardly an even exchange if she didn't want to get rid of it. You can give someone money for their house, but if they don't want to leave, you're still taking it from them.

- So there's two components to theft: monetary value and sentimental value, which can't be quantified.

- It seems to me that the constitution words it to include monetary value of the property, but that's all. I read it as meaning that the interests of the government and appropriate market compensation should be sufficient (and therefore just) compensation for one's property.

- I disagree with that idea because there is sentimental value to some things and just because you can't put a dollar value on it doesn't mean it's worthless. Personal value can be subjective. Without acknowledging that, you're taking someone's property and not compensating them fully for it (stealing).

Edited July 2, 2009 by shadesofgrey

[Jake_Ellison]

Ahhh.......I see the problem. It's a combination of syntax and point of reference. Here it is:

- I should have put "just compensation" in quotes to represent that I was saying it sarcastically. The writers of the constitution obviously thought that they were acting in the interest of justice when writing the document. So from THEIR frame of reference, the government gives you what IT thinks is the market value for your property and out you go.

I don't think the writers of the Constitution were two bit political hacks trying to con their Trojan horse into the Constitution. That's more of a trademark of present political life. If they wanted to state something, they would've stated it, not used the word "just" to mean the right of government to rob people. Nothing in the Constitution suggests that they would behave in that manner, in fact they were the authors of the greatest Constitution ever adopted by a country, in the history of the human race.

Next you're gonna tell me that the second amendment is a con job too, and the right to bear arms only refers to militias, but it was formulated in a tricky way to fool stupid marks into thinking they would get to keep their guns.

I also think that "stealing" isn't limited to specifically taking something, it can represent an unfair exchange by force.

To steal means to take by force or fraud. Fair and unfair has nothing to do with it, especially since the proper definition of fairness does not allow for the use of force.

Personal value can be subjective.

Value is by definition subjective.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Grames]

Clearly the writers of the constitution accommodated the idea of a forced sale. It is a contradiction in terms, and it was deliberately put there. I don't think the idea is rescued by the adjective "just".

Value is by definition subjective.

Value is by definition personal. Actual values can be objective or subjective, the difference is the method employed to select or create them.

[Jake_Ellison]

Clearly the writers of the constitution accommodated the idea of a forced sale. It is a contradiction in terms, and it was deliberately put there. I don't think the idea is rescued by the adjective "just".

Clearly, adding the adverb "clearly" to a conversation doesn't really add any substance to it. Why is it so clear that the adjective "just" is meaningless, or means a sytem of justice which allows robbing people?

[Grames]

Clearly, adding the adverb "clearly" to a conversation doesn't really add any substance to it. Why is it so clear that the adjective "just" is meaningless, or means a sytem of justice which allows robbing people?

A forced sale is a contradiction in terms. Sales are voluntary based upon mutually agreed exchange of values. If one side gets to set the terms, it is no longer a sale no matter what the compensation. An involuntary sale can never be just, and compensation should be understood as damages in restitution. Why should it ever be permissible to deliberately and with foresight inflict damages on someone?

[Jeffrey Tang]

The problem lies not in the idea of providing "just compensation" for a person's property, but in the statement's ambiguity. Perhaps the founders meant this clause to act solely as a prohibition against taking property by force, but the language they used is too easily twisted. The founders may have intended something like this:

Interpretation A: "The government is prohibited from taking private property for public use. Instead, the government is only permitted to purchase private property by offering 'just compensation.' The private citizen may accept or reject this exchange.

However, the clause is easily twisted by the government into:

Interpretation B: "So long as the government provides what it considers 'just compensation,' it is allowed to force private citizens into giving up their land for public use."

Interpretation A treats "just compensation" as a voluntary option which prohibits coercion; the government may not acquire private property through force, but only through proposing a voluntary sale. Interpretation B (the one used by the government today) treats "just compensation" as an exclusionary condition: "government can forcibly acquire private property so long as it simultaneously provides the property holder with what it (the government) judges as "just compensation."

Edited July 4, 2009 by Jeffrey Tang

[L-C]

Jeffrey, is it possible that they were too unsuspecting of future generations of officials? Too naively "good-natured"? Obviously they lacked the knowledge necessary to craft an airproof constitution, but even given their context as it was at the time, they could've used some healthy suspicion.

[Jeffrey Tang]

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

[Zedic]

I remember in Atlast Shrugged, multiple examples of violence used against "bad ideas". In the beginning, there's the back story of Nat Taggart building his rail road. When it's suggested to him that he borrows money from the government, he throws that person down the stairs. After John Galt's speech, a wife has her jaw broken by her husband when she tells her son to share his toys. Also, a person is brought to the hospital after his brother, who was taking care of him, beat him up for being a moocher. Perhaps the last two examples can be written off as people who aren't really Objectivists but reacting to Galt's speech. But Nat Taggart was an Objectivist hero by the true sense of the word. So to me, that's saying it is okay to use force against people with bad ideas. I imagine that's because ideas have power and by asserting them is essentially a threat of force. So in other words, it's acting in self defense.

[Trebor]

I remember in Atlast Shrugged, multiple examples of violence used against "bad ideas".

You might find Dr. Peikoff's responses to the following, related, questions in his podcast, Episode 32 -- October 13, 2008, helpful:

03:40: "As far as I know, Kant did not force anyone to accept his philosophy, so he respected man's rights, but he lead to communisim and nazism and totalitarianism which denounced man's rights in mass murder, so he did ultimately destroy man's rights, so is Kant a criminal or not? Could he have been prosecuted for fraud for advocating, saying he is for reason when he is really for irrationalism and destruction?"

07:02: "In a proper society should it be illegal merely to advocate the initiation of the use of force? What about for someone to advocate cold-blooded murder? And should it then be illegal to merely advocate socialist type laws since they imply or even openingly advocate the initiation of force?"

Edited July 15, 2009 by Trebor

[Zedic]

Thanks for the link. I think I found the answer after his discussion about Kant. Peikoff talks about instigating or being an accessory to a crime - essentially carrying out your "corrupt ideas in a particular tangible way, then of course that should be illegal". So a crime, as defined in Objectivism, is the use of force against an individual? So in an Objectivist civilization, would actions such as subversives trying to organize conservationism (similar to the form we have in the U.S. now) or forming a collectivist movement to actively undermine the capitalist economy be considered crimes?

Edited July 15, 2009 by Zedic

[Trebor]

Thanks for the link.

You're welcome.

Here's a little more by Dr. Peikoff on the same issue in his podcast, Episode 65 -- June 08, 2009:

15:10: "Is religious proselytizing or missionary effort with an aim to gain converts to a religion immoral?" (Last question; near the end.)

(Interestingly enough, a couple of young guys were here only 15 minutes ago, knocking at my door, wanting to share Jesus with me. We had a brief discussion, and I suggested that they read Atlas Shrugged. Who knows?)

Crime, according to Objectivism, is not "the use of force against an individual." If that were so, it would be a crime for the police to use force to stop or apprehend a criminal.

What makes an action criminal, objectively, is that it involves the initiation of the use of force. Using force against an initiator of the use of force is the proper use of force, which otherwise has no place in civilized society.

(Initiating force does include fraud. And of course, a threat is the initiation of the use of force. You don't have to wait until the gunman pulls the trigger to defend yourself. He's let you know in no uncertain terms what his intentions are.)

Edited July 15, 2009 by Trebor

[Zedic]

What makes an action criminal, objectively, is that it involves the initiation of the use of force. Using force against an initiator of the use of force is the proper use of force, which otherwise has no place in civilized society.

Okay, right, I forgot to add that detail but that's what I meant, the initiation of force. So are the examples I provided within the given scenario an initiation of force and thus a crime in an Objectivist LFC society?

[Trebor]

Okay, right, I forgot to add that detail but that's what I meant, the initiation of force. So are the examples I provided within the given scenario an initiation of force and thus a crime in an Objectivist LFC society?

You mean: "...would actions such as subversives trying to organize conservationism (similar to the form we have in the U.S. now) or forming a collectivist movement to actively undermine the capitalist economy be considered crimes?"

I'd say that it depends upon what you mean when you say "trying to organize conservationism" or "forming a collectivist movement."

There's no violation of rights in organizing people united around a common idea or forming a movement, even collectivist, to actively undermine the capitalist economy, as long as the actions taken do not include the initiation of the use of force.

True enough, if individuals act on evil ideas and initiate the use of force they will commit crimes, but the mere advocacy or teaching, the spread, of evil ideas is not criminal, nor should it be.

It all boils down to whether or not anyone's rights have been violated, whether the use of force has been initiated against anyone. If not, there's no crime...or shouldn't be.

You have to fight evil ideas with good ideas, not guns.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Trebor

[Zedic]

What I'm trying to get at here is, since Capitalism is the only means by which men can freely exchange ideas and goods, any other system employs the use of force. I'd imagine the subjugation and consequent supersession of a Capitalist system by a non-Capitalist system (such as an anarchist system), even if no one is necessarily harmed physically in the process, is inherently an initiation of force. Since Captialism is by definition the recognition of rights and "entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships", any attempt to dispose of it is to dispose freedom itself. So I personally think the initiation of a revolution to over throw an Objectivist LFC society is an act of force and a crime (within the principles of such a society). I'm just curious what others here think.

[D'kian]

I remember in Atlast Shrugged, multiple examples of violence used against "bad ideas". In the beginning, there's the back story of Nat Taggart building his rail road. When it's suggested to him that he borrows money from the government, he throws that person down the stairs.

That's a terribly bad example for two reasons:

1) Atlas Shrugged is fiction. Events are dramatized for effect. In this case the line is meant as a quick and dirty illustration of how much Nat Taggert opposed taking government money.

2) Rand does not go into details of Nat Taggart's meeting with the gentleman from Washington. Did Taggart ordered him out before resorting to the use of force? Stuff like that.

After John Galt's speech, a wife has her jaw broken by her husband when she tells her son to share his toys.

Actually by a complete stranger, if memory serves. Again, it's an illustration of the country's mood change after Galt's speech.

[Trebor]

So I personally think the initiation of a revolution to over throw an Objectivist LFC society is an act of force and a crime (within the principles of such a society).

The initiation of a revolution, the attempt to forcibly overthrow the government of a free country, is an act of civil war. No, it would not be legal. It is certainly an attack on individual rights, in principle and in action, and the government should aggressively us force to put down the revolution.

[2046]

What about: is it moral to assassinate a president, or congressman, or judge, or other political leader if that leader is personally establishing and initiating policies that violate individual rights?

[Mixon]

What about: is it moral to assassinate a president, or congressman, or judge, or other political leader if that leader is personally establishing and initiating policies that violate individual rights?

That question reminds me of a Louisana politician who was assassinated in 1935 named Huey P. Long. His "Share the Wealth" platform made the New Deal look pale by comparison, to say nothing of the current crisis. I cringe at the thought of that scenario playing out again.

I will answer your question with two questions. Does any breach of individual rights, regardless of its scope, merit a death sentence? Must retalitory force neccessarily be deadly force?

[2046]

That question reminds me of a Louisana politician who was assassinated in 1935 named Huey P. Long. His "Share the Wealth" platform made the New Deal look pale by comparison, to say nothing of the current crisis. I cringe at the thought of that scenario playing out again.

I will answer your question with two questions. Does any breach of individual rights, regardless of its scope, merit a death sentence? Must retalitory force neccessarily be deadly force?

I would say, in general, yes. - if deadly force is the one thing that will stop the breach, then it would be stupid not to use it. I'm not sure how that applies to political assassinations though.

[Kaiwai Gardiner]

If the ideology threatens ones existence then one could justify it; lets hypothetically say that a Jew heard Hitler propagating his political ideology of the final solution - would it be ethical for that Jew to kill Hitler to save millions from death camps? I would argue that it is ethical for that Jew to kill Hitler because of his ideological beliefs.

Replace Nazism with what ever ideology that threatens your existence; not merely a nuisance such as excessive taxation but threatens to wipe you out and there isn't a thing you can change about your self to avoid that fait.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Kaiwai Gardiner

[DavidOdden]

Replace Nazism with what ever ideology that threatens your existence; not merely a nuisance such as excessive taxation but threatens to wipe you out and there isn't a thing you can change about your self to avoid that fait.

You do realize, I assume, that you've just invited people to kill you.