When does one rebel against a gov. by force?

[JMeganSnow]

Extend this principle to its logical extreme and no one in the entire world has the right to "not be shot at" because EVERYONE is participating in some kind of injustice due to this mixed-economy bullshit. I maintain that it is an initiation of force because you would not be attacking the disembodied entity called the "IRS", you would be attacking a specific individual or individuals who probably don't even comprehend that what they are doing IS an intiation of force.

That being said, if you were to encounter a truly evil smug-asshole auditing-people-because-I-can IRS agent, please, by all means, shoot him in the head with my blessing.

The BBC, however, is NOT the IRS. In theory, at least, it provides some kind of value . . . it's just marvellously inefficient and biased. So, preventing all your neighbors from receiving a service for which they have paid because you've chosen to throw a tissy does constitute an initiation of force.

I think it's reasonable to mark the initiation at the time when you ("you" being Mr. BBC-jammer) started being a jerk, otherwise you'll wind up tracing the force-initiation back hundreds of generations to that first caveman that hit the other caveman in the head with a rock, because that's the kind of mutual-looting situation we're in now and HAVE been in for pretty much all of recorded history and frankly that just gets insane. You have to apply your ethical principles to the stuff that you personally have control over . . . you can't fight the looters on their terms, you have to maintain an unbreached record in that regard. (Yes, this means that good men surrounded by evil are martyrs, but that's ALWAYS been true.) I look forward to a day when you can point the finger and say "he started it!" and actually have that be TRUE.

[Inspector]

See, that's the worst part of the mixed economy; it makes tracing or explaining the initiation of force difficult or impossible. I still say tax collectors don't have a right to do what they do, but you make some good points.

The primary point remains: however you reach this conclusion, it simply isn't a good idea to pull that kind of nonsense.

[BurgessLau]

Suppose a citizen of the UK who is also a wealthy Objectivist ("UKwO" for short) [...] 

Question 1: Would UKwO [...] 

Suppose that UKwO is arrested [...] 

Question 2: According to Objectivism, [...]

Joynewyeary, if you would state your purpose in asking this question, you would help set a context, and that, in turn, will assist the members of this forum in helping you solve the problem you are facing.

Another benefit of stating your personal connection to the question is to help reassure other forum members that you are not engaging in mere imaginary, rationalistic intellectual adventures, but are struggling to improve the quality of your life, partly through integrating objective philosophical principles into your actions.

Also, are you asking this question because it is the most important unanswered question you face in life? If not, wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the most important question in your life?

So, in summary, why are you asking this question, and where does it fit into your hierarchy of values?

[Hal]

Following the spirit of the original post, I'm going to make several semi-related points, only loosely tied together:

- He wouldnt have the moral right to jam the airwaves unless it was for a specific purpose. If it was just aimless raging against the machine, it would be in the same category as randomly murdering tax collectors. Jamming the airwaves isnt going to help advance us towards a more proper society, nor does it seem to have any other legitimate aim.

- Broadcasting cannot ever be an "initiation of force" unless you have a very strange definition of force.

- I dont think 'ownership of the airwaves' is a valid idea at all. There is no justification for the government only allowing one group of people to broadcast on frequency X, while denying others the right to do so. The proper solution is to make the airwaves fully public. Individual companies and people can continue to broadcast their stations/channels by using cable, digital tv/radio and the internet.

- Freeing people from prison is morally permissable if they are being held unjustly, but this would not apply in this particular case.

- The prison guard question is too absurdly hypothetical to address.

- The BBC, whilst illegitimate due to receiving tax funds, is an excellent broadcasting company. In particular, its news coverage is amongst the worlds best. I think Ayn Rand once made a comment about supporting NASA at the present time even though it was technically illegitimate, simply because it was a better use of tax money than 99% of government programs. I feel similarly about the BBC, but the problem is that it's subsidised by an explict tax (the license fee) rather than having its funds creamed off the income/sales taxes. Therefore I would strongly support abolishing the license fee.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Hal

[Inspector]

- The BBC, whilst illegitimate due to receiving tax funds, is an excellent broadcasting company.

Hal, and this is entirely an aside, I don't know about that evaluation. I've heard the BBC described as "just this side of al-jazeera" in terms of their slant. I've personally seen a few of their broadcasts and what I saw seemed to back up that claim.

[Hal]

I would disagree, I find BBC news to be fairly unbiased.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Hal

[Inspector]

I would disagree, I find BBC news to be fairly unbiased.

Hmm. Okay, well it's hardly like I'm an expert. Maybe they've changed since I last watched.

/threadjack

Edited July 13, 2005 by Inspector

[DavidOdden]

I dont think 'ownership of the airwaves' is a valid idea at all. There is no justification for the government only allowing one group of people to broadcast on frequency X, while denying others the right to do so. The proper solution is to make the airwaves fully public. Individual companies and people can continue to broadcast their stations/channels by using cable, digital tv/radio and the internet.

So you're saying that only the government should be allowed to broadcast? What justifies this restriction of property rights?

I feel similarly about the BBC, but the problem is that it's subsidised by an explict tax (the license fee) rather than having its funds creamed off the income/sales taxes. Therefore I would strongly support abolishing the license fee.

Given an across-the-board everybody pays it tax, vs. a usage-based subsidy, on moral grounds it is better to support it with the license (though best to privatize broadcasting entirely).

[Hal]

So you're saying that only the government should be allowed to broadcast? What justifies this restriction of property rights?

Anyone who owns a transmitter should be allowed to broadcast. There's no justification for telling people they cant broadcast based on a fictional right to 'own' a frequency of radio wave.

Given an across-the-board everybody pays it tax, vs. a usage-based subsidy, on moral grounds it is better to support it with the license (though best to privatize broadcasting entirely).

The license fee isnt usage based, its mandatory for anyone who owns a television capable of receiving BBC transmissions, regardless of whether you have any intention of watching BBC channels (as opposed to viewing cable or playing computer games).

[Inspector]

David and Hal, if I may:

It seems you are misunderstanding each other on Hal's use of the term "making the airwaves fully public." Hal, you don't mean by this to put all air broadcasts under government control. That is, however, what is generally meant by making a thing "fully public," as opposed to "fully private" which is, I am sure, what you meant to say.

[Hal]

David and Hal, if I may:

It seems you are misunderstanding each other on Hal's use of the term "making the airwaves fully public."

Yeah, I can see how that was misleading. I didnt mean fully private though, since this implies that the airwaves are ownable, when what I wanted to say was that the concept of ownership doesnt apply here.

[jrs]

- He wouldnt have the moral right to jam the airwaves unless it was for a specific purpose.

- Broadcasting cannot ever be an "initiation of force" unless you have a very strange definition of force.

- I dont think 'ownership of the airwaves' is a valid idea at all.

Jamming interferes with communication among other people: the sender and the receivers. Transmitting the jamming "signal" exerts a force (an electric force) on the receivers. So the jammer is depriving the receivers of their liberty of action, that is, of receiving the signal from the sender in an intelligible form. The receivers are forced to choose between: turning down the volume and thus missing the meaningful signal from the sender; or being overwhelmed by the jamming signal.

Broadcasting on a channel (frequency band) which is already in use constitutes jamming and is thus a use of force. If those being jammed are innocent, then it is an initiation of force.

A frequency band within a geographical area (the area served by the sender's transmissions) can be property for the same reason that land can be property. Trespassing on the frequency band, i.e. jamming, violates the right to liberty of communication between the sender and his receivers. Property rights follow from liberty rights which follow from the right to life.

[Hal]

Jamming interferes with communication among other people:  the sender and the receivers.  Transmitting the jamming "signal" exerts a force (an electric force) on the receivers.  So the jammer is depriving the receivers of their liberty of action, that is, of receiving the signal from the sender in an intelligible form.  The receivers are forced to choose between: turning down the volume and thus missing the meaningful signal from the sender; or being overwhelmed by the jamming signal.

Talking loudly in public interferes with people who are trying to whisper. But this doesnt constitute an initiation of force because the whispering people do not the have right to own a sound wave channel. Edited July 14, 2005 by Hal

[AisA]

Talking loudly in public interferes with people who are trying to whisper. But this doesnt constitute an initiation of force because the whispering people do not the have right to own a sound wave channel.

No one can claim the right to carry a bullhorn and drown out private conversations in public or anywhere else.

More specifically, see Miss Rand's article, "The Property Status of Airwaves" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal:

Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property -- by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.

This is particularly true of the broadcast frequencies or waves, because they are produced by human action and do not exist without it.

Read the whole thing.

[Strangelove]

Hal, and this is entirely an aside, I don't know about that evaluation. I've heard the BBC described as "just this side of al-jazeera" in terms of their slant. I've personally seen a few of their broadcasts and what I saw seemed to back up that claim.

It would be true to say that the "slant" of the BBC is in a direction that most Objectivists would prefer it did not lean.

However, ironically, being supported by taxes has been a good thing for the BBC, because it means that unlike its American coutnerparts (CNN, Fox, etc.) it is not concerned about the "bottom line" and more concerned about the quality of its reporting. So its news tends to cover more international news, do more indepth documentaries, and in general, do much better reporting then most other news institutions.

While it is not perfect (especially when it comes to Israel-Palestine) the news from the BBC is more often then not, of high quality.

[HaloNoble6]

Hm, at least the citizens get a 'good' news source for being thieved.

[AisA]

However, ironically, being supported by taxes has been a good thing for the BBC, because it means that unlike its American coutnerparts (CNN, Fox, etc.) it is not concerned about the "bottom line" and more concerned about the quality of its reporting. So its news tends to cover more international news, do more indepth documentaries, and in general, do much better reporting then most other news institutions.

Are you saying that the profit motive inherently leads to a lower quality product? Why would that be the case in news reporting when it is so obviously not the case with respect to a vast array of other products?

[scottkursk]

However, ironically, being supported by taxes has been a good thing for the BBC, because it means that unlike its American coutnerparts (CNN, Fox, etc.) it is not concerned about the "bottom line" and more concerned about the quality of its reporting. So its news tends to cover more international news, do more indepth documentaries, and in general, do much better reporting then most other news institutions.

While it is not perfect (especially when it comes to Israel-Palestine) the news from the BBC is more often then not, of high quality.

I've seen the documentary "Outfoxed" more times than I care since my fiance is liberal. I always point out to her that the great thing about Fox is that it finally took Murdock to make the Left Wing admit that there was a bias in the media. Of course, I point the documentary misses all the gazillion other cases of bias on the left and then get what I call "the grumbly face"

Sure, Fox has a right and neo-con slant to their view on the news. MSNBC and especially anything connected with CNN has a very much left wing slant to the news. Mind you, the obvious slant is nothing compared to that of the BBC. I will admit that some of the news I watch when I wake up at 5 is some of the best reporting in the world. But then just because Pravda uses some of the most prosaic English in the universe to do a report and have managed to interview the most despotic of world dictators doesn't mean that they are an objective source.

But then so is the reporting I find in the Economist. I religiously read the Economist and have since 1989 and find their reporting second to none but they have a center left slant that they really don't bother hiding. Back when Jacques DeLourse was knee deep in the EU everyone expected him to be the next anti-christ economically and theory were relatively fair in their coverage of him. They still try to take a "fair" coverage of things like aid to 3rd world countries in as much as they are only concerned with the numbers side of the issues as opposed to the long term effects and the moral reasons behind the aid. But then they've been around for longer than just about anyone else. I think about 250 years or so in publication.

[Michero]

Suppose a citizen of the UK who is also a wealthy Objectivist ("UKwO" for short) decides to jam BBC broadcasts in London, England. 

Question 1: Would UKwO have the moral right to do that? 

Suppose that UKwO is arrested and imprisoned for repeatedly jamming BBC broadcasts and suppose that friends of UKwO attempt to free UKwO by invading the prison where UKwO is held. 

Question 2: According to Objectivism, if some prison guards fought the invaders while knowing who the invaders were and what the invaders wanted, then would those prison guards be to blame for their own injuries suffered while fighting the invaders?

1. No you do not have a right to do that:

Public TV is something citizens have paid for, with stolen funds yes, but paid for none the less and they deserve the right to enjoy the benefits of that payment. You would become the thief (especially from those who enjoy the programming and would continue to pay into it voluntarily) you wouldn't be in the moral clear doing this. And personally I must admit I like a lot of BBC shows.

[AisA]

Am I the only one who recognizes where these questions came from?  This is (approximately) what John Galt did at the end of Atlas Shrugged.  She is asking whether or not John Galt was justified in his actions and why; and further whether these same reasons would apply to a basically moral person doing the same to the BBC/British government.

Good point, NT.

By the time of Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged, the government, via Directive 10-289, had enslaved the population. This was a massive initiation of force aimed at the entire society; it was essentially a declaration that no individual rights existed.

A government that respects no individual rights has disintegrated into a gang of criminals and cannot claim any sort of rights of its own, including the right to make a broadcast. Galt's hijacking of the broadcast frequencies was thus a retaliatory use of force against those who had initiated it -- and hence was fully justified.

Note also that Galt did not merely jam a broadcast. He delivered a message (and what a message!).

The rescue of Galt, including the killing of the guard, was justified for the same reason: the retaliatory use of force against those who had initiated it against Galt.

Obviously, the British government has not enslaved its population. It is still possible to change conditions there by persuasion, i.e. without resorting to retaliatory force. So I would say that the hypothetical jamming is unjustified.

The next question is: how bad must things get to justify private individuals using retaliatory force against the government? I believe Miss Rand would say that as long as we have basic freedom of speech, i.e. as long as we can still use persuasion, force is not justified.

[Free Radical]

It's somewhat difficult to draw the line exactly when rights violations are "ocassional" and when they are persistent and systematic. Even the rule given by Ayn Rand, which, I believe, is

1. One party rule

2. Censorship

3. Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus

is difficult to apply. Must the one party be explicitly one party? The Democrats and the Republicans are identical fundamentally, differing only in the details. As for censorship, we have the Federal Communications Comission (FCC). Only number 3, as far as I know, has not been implemented.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Free Radical

[Vladimir Berkov]

1. One party rule

2. Censorship

3. Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus

That sounds like an exact description of the United States during the Civil War!