Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is the use of force inevitable in society?

Rate this topic


tjfields

Recommended Posts

Is the use of force inevitable in society?


 

In her essay, “The Nature of Government”, Ayn Rand makes the case that for a civilized society to exist, for men “to live together in a peaceful, productive, rational society and to deal with one another to mutual benefit,” physical force must be barred from social relationships and put under objective control. Ms. Rand states, “A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control – i.e., under objectively defined laws.”

 

While Ms. Rand goes on in the essay to define objective laws and argue why a government enforcing objective laws is needed, she fails to explain how the objective laws will be created.

 

It is this point on which I am seeking answers. It appears to me that the lack of explanation as to how objective laws are created can lead to the use of force by the government charged with enforcing those laws. This use of force, according to Ms. Rand, is not a proper form of government and would therefore change the government to nothing more than institutional gang-rule.

 

So, how are objective laws created?

 

As I see it, there are two possible answers. The first is that objective laws are not created but are discovered by man. Similar to the laws of nature that apply to gravity or movement, there exists objective laws that uphold individual rights and, once discovered, can be enforced by men. These laws would be truly objective and anyone could test these laws and observe the same results as anyone else who performed similar tests. Just as with the laws of gravity, where anyone can drop two rocks of different sizes and weights at the same time and, after removing the effect of wind resistance, observe that the rocks hit the ground at the same time, an objective law could be tested and everyone performing the tests would make the same observations about the law.

 

While not explicitly stated, Ms. Rand does not appear to endorse the concept of existing, discoverable objective laws when she states, “The use of physical force – even its retaliatory use – cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens,” and “a man’s rights may not be left at the mercy of the unilateral decision, the arbitrary choice, the irrationality, the whim of another man.” If objective laws existed and were discoverable by man, then Ms. Rand’s statements would not apply as the individual (or competing police forces or governments) would not be making arbitrary choices or decisions based on whim, rather the individual would be following the objective law that is discoverable and knowable to all.

 

In the absence of existing, discoverable objective laws, the second possible means of creating objective laws appears to be a government, acting with the consent of its citizens who have delegated to it their right of physical self defense, which chooses the objective laws to enforce.

 

If this is the means of creating objective laws, the question then becomes how does a government choose the objective laws. Additionally, how can government choose and enforce objective laws without initiating physical force against some or all of its citizens?

 

Ms. Rand defines an objective law when she states, “All laws must be objective (and objectively justifiable): men must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it.”

 

Let us consider two laws, Law A and Law B, that both conform to and meet Ms. Rand’s definition of an objective law.

 

Law A states that 1) Murder is forbidden, 2) murder is forbidden because it is immoral to deprive another of his or her life, 3) committing the act of murder is a crime that carries a penalty, and 4) the penalty for committing the act of murder is death. 

 

Law B states that 1) Murder is forbidden, 2) murder is forbidden because it is immoral to deprive another of his or her life, 3) committing the act of murder is a crime that carries a penalty, and 4) the penalty for committing the act of murder is imprisonment for life. 

 

The assumption is made that the definition of murder, the process of determining guilt or innocence, and the definitions of the penalties are all objective and clear. All aspects that concern these two laws, with the exception of the penalty, are identical.

 

Now consider that in a society there are those who support one of the laws but not the other due to the difference in the penalty. Those that support Law A consist of both rational and irrational people and the arguments that the supporters use to justify their support consist of both rational and irrational arguments. The same is true for the supporters of Law B.

 

Now the government, in its role of sole arbiter and enforcers of laws, must choose one of these objective laws (or another possible variation which would also have supports and detractors) to enforce since these two laws cannot be enforced at the same time. How does the government make this choice? How does the government decide which of these objective laws to enforce?

 

If the government chooses to enforce Law A, then those supporters of Law B will be compelled to act against their own rational judgment if they continue to consent to the government’s authority, and vice versa. At this point, the government is not using reason by obtaining voluntary, uncoerced agreement from its citizens, it is using non-retaliatory force. If the government is initiating force against its citizens rather than protecting its citizens from the use of force when it enforces objective laws, then how can government be the necessity that Ms. Rand claims it to be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A disagreement in the mode of punishment or deterrence can occur even if both parties agree upon the nature of the wrong that was done.

 

Example:  I oppose the death penalty.  Not because I disagree with the impulse or sentiment behind it,  but because the determination of guilt is not one hundred percent  accurate and reliable.  Recently, in the State if Illinois it was found that five percent of people who were convicted of murder some of who were on "death row"  turned out not to be guilty of the crime for which they were convicted.  Illinois has recused itself from executing the death penalty, as a result.

 

ruveyn1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the government chooses to enforce Law A, then those supporters of Law B will be compelled to act against their own rational judgment if they continue to consent to the government’s authority, and vice versa. At this point, the government is not using reason by obtaining voluntary, uncoerced agreement from its citizens, it is using non-retaliatory force. If the government is initiating force against its citizens rather than protecting its citizens from the use of force when it enforces objective laws, then how can government be the necessity that Ms. Rand claims it to be?

 

This is not an accurate characterization of legitimate government.  A government does not gain or lose its legitimacy based on whether it "obtains voluntary, uncoerced agreement from its citizens."  Such agreement is not a necessary condition for a proper government.  Rand's political theory is not based on any form of consent theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dante,

 

Could you please explain then what is an accurate characterization of legitimate government? Accorrding to Ms. Rand in "The Nature of Government":

 

The source of the government's authority is "the consent of the governed." This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

 

Additionally, if, as you wrote, "A government does not gain or lose its legitimacy based on whether it 'obtains voluntary, uncoerced agreement from its citizens.'" does that mean that a legitimate government can use non-retaliatory force against it citizens? Is your answer to my question of, "is the use of force inevitable in society" yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider the very next passage in that essay: 

 

There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement. Or, to put it another way, he must accept the separation of force and whim (any whim, including his own).

 

Rand clearly states the issue on which men have delegated authority to the government if they choose to live in civilized society.  I should have spoken more clearly: Rand's theory clearly leaves no role for the kind of explicit consent your example involves.  One cannot participate in civil society and at the same time attempt to retain authority over the details of the use of retaliatory force.  The type of explicit statement "I agree with the way in which the government is protecting my rights" is not a necessary condition for a citizen to be represented by the government.  By participating in civil society, he has given up his authority in this manner.  Correspondingly, the government choosing a different method of punishment than the one he would like is not an initiation of force against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...  Rand's political theory is not based on any form of consent theory.

Citation?

 

edit:  The intervening post just above this explains what you meant, but accepting the principle of the separation of force and whim is definitely a form of consent theory.

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to have introduced such confusion.  The salient point here is this:

 

The individual in the original post who opposes Law A (capital punishment) removes his explicit consent for this law from the government.  The OP then goes on to claim that this means that the government is now initiating force against this person; that the withdrawal of explicit consent means that the government is now acting outside of its authority.

 

This is not the case.  The government does not need to obtain explicit consent from every citizen it represents for every law it passes.  By participating in civil society, the individual has forfeited his authority over matters of the administration of retaliatory force, and his explicit consent is not required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dante,

 

Thank you for your insight. But if the individual "cannot participate in civil society and at the same time attempt to retain authority over the details of the use of retaliatory force" then who retains that authority? If the answer is the government and since the the government is just a collection of individuals, then is it not possible for at least some people to participate in civil society and retain authority over the use of retaliatory force? If so, then doesn't the government become just one group of people (those who retain authority over the details) forcing their will on another group of people (thoses who do not retain the authority over the details)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each individual that is granted such authority as a member of the government also accepts the responsibility to use such authority to faithfully execute the laws of the government.  Thus, whether this exercise of authority is legitimate or not depends once again on the legitimacy of the laws themselves.  Governmental legitimacy is determined by whether these laws stick to or deviate from the proper function of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dante,

 

To go back to one of the questions in the original post, where do legitimate laws come from? How do the laws that sick to the proper function of government come into existence? In the example in the original post, there are two objective yet conflicting laws that an individual who is granted authority as a member of the government could faithfully execute. How does it get decided which law is enforce since, regardless of the choice, there will be individuals who consider the enforcement of the law as a deviation from the proper function of government?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky,

 

I am not sure of the purpose of your post. I did write that Ms. Rand failed to explain how objective law will be created. It is due to this lack of explaination that I ask the question. Since Ms. Rand argues that government is needed to in order to place the use of physical force under objectively defined laws, the fact that she does not explain how the objectively defined laws are created leaves a question about her argument for which I am seeking answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the use of force inevitable in society?

Countries are formed when a group of people get together for the purpose of using force to defend themselves and their rights. If there was no need to defend (there was no one to defend from), then there would be no need for a country. Society (in this sense) is just another name for the same group of people.

And yes, the use of force on the part of any society is inevitable as long as there are people who wish to initialize force against any of its members.

While not explicitly stated, Ms. Rand does not appear to endorse the concept of existing, discoverable objective laws

Yes, that sounds like something that wouldn't be explicitly stated in an essay about government. But she did explicitly state it, elsewhere (when discussing concepts, in "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology", for instance.

Now consider that in a society there are those who support one of the laws but not the other due to the difference in the penalty. Those that support Law A consist of both rational and irrational people and the arguments that the supporters use to justify their support consist of both rational and irrational arguments. The same is true for the supporters of Law B.

Contradictions don't exist. It's not true that two laws that contradict each other are both rational and just. One is rational and just, the other is not. Or, more likely in modern societies, neither is fully rational, and a third, which punishes murder with life in prison or with death depending on the severity of the act, is the rational one. That's the one the government ought to choose.

If the government chooses to enforce Law A, then those supporters of Law B will be compelled to act against their own rational judgment if they continue to consent to the government’s authority, and vice versa.

Unanimous consent is not necessary for the functioning of the government. A LFC government is supported by voluntary contributions.

If supporters of law B don't want to agree or consent to a law they don't agree with, or even to the government as a whole, that is fine. No one will force them to consent to anything. The government's job is to use force against criminals, not people who disagree with things. Freedom of though and speech is in fact a right.

Objectivism is against forced taxation, which forces people who disagree with the government to support it.

P.S. One can in fact also make a rational decision to participate in a society one does not fully agree with. i.e. oppose the death penalty, but still support the democratically elected government that imposes it, while working within the system to get rid of it.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the original post, I don't think the 'laws of physics' and the idea of objective law in society are comparable. It seems trying to make this comparision and then trying to resolve the apparent problems is what leads to the inability to find the source of objective law. A rock can not violate the laws that govern it(in the sense of the use of the word law in this context), principles of human interactions can be violated by those who understand them and by those who do not.

In the part of the OP that deals with the two laws, is this comment meant to explore whether the idea of jurisdiction can be objective within a specific society ? eg one state( in the US) may use capital punishment and another not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky,

 

I have not read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" in a while so I do not remember it all. Did Ayn Rand explicitly stated that there are objective laws that are not created but are discovered by man, or that objective laws are created by man?

 

I agree with you that contridictions do not exist. However, your reponse still leaves the question of how does the government know which law is rational and just? In the originial post I presented two laws and you responded that maybe neither is fully rational and that a third law could likely be rational. How does an individual, or a government, determine which is rational and which is not? How does the government choose which law to enforce when rational people disagree about which law is the rational and just law?

 

You wrote: "If supporters of law B don't want to agree or consent to a law they don't agree with, or even to the government as a whole, that is fine. No one will force them to consent to anything. The government's job is to use force against criminals, not people who disagree with things. Freedom of though and speech is in fact a right."

 

This I do not understand in the context of Ms. Rand's essay. If a person, or group, rationally thinks that the government is enforcing unjust, irrational laws, that person then withdraws his or her consent to delegate the right of physical self defense to that government. At that point, according to Ms. Rand, the government has no rights because none have been delegated to it and the government ceases to be a proper government. Once it ceases to be a proper government, it is no longer an agent of its citizens but a ruler of them and its continued use of force against anyone, including whoever the government defines as criminals, is not justified. So again, the question is raised as to how objective laws are created.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the use of force inevitable in society?

 

In her essay, “The Nature of Government”, Ayn Rand makes the case that for a civilized society to exist, for men “to live together in a peaceful, productive, rational society and to deal with one another to mutual benefit,” physical force must be barred from social relationships and put under objective control. Ms. Rand states, “A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control – i.e., under objectively defined laws.”

 

While Ms. Rand goes on in the essay to define objective laws and argue why a government enforcing objective laws is needed, she fails to explain how the objective laws will be created.

 

It is this point on which I am seeking answers. It appears to me that the lack of explanation as to how objective laws are created can lead to the use of force by the government charged with enforcing those laws. This use of force, according to Ms. Rand, is not a proper form of government and would therefore change the government to nothing more than institutional gang-rule.

 

So, how are objective laws created?

Something tells me you will find most of the answers here unsatisfactory. For my part, I see it slightly differently than as you described here. You say that Rand defines objective laws, but fails to explain how they are created. As I see it, Rand fails to define objective laws, but seems pretty clear in supporting creation of law by a legislature under representative democracy. Certainly, Rand's devotion to individual rights is unquestionable, however, I think she tended to overlook the important procedural or structural requirements that must accompany any legal system, and that the most libertarian aspects of law has developed in historically.

 

As to your question of how law is created, I thnk you are more on track. You can view law as created by the government (legislative law) in a centrally planned fashion, and as you can see from most of the responses that a lot of Objectivist just think, well you know the legislature convenes and enacts this or that law. But I think this ignores the dangers of legislative law, and as you can see, not a whole lot of thought seems to be given to the coherence of this approach with other prinicples in the Objectivist system.  But centralized law is not the only way, there is a vast legal tradition of decentralized "judge-found" law that Objectivists should support. And I think only the latter is compatible with principles that Objectivism upholds. For more, you can read in the Italian jurist Bruno Leoni's book, Freedom and the Law, which is free online.

 

Now, I also am a bit puzzled by your question "is the use of force inevitable," because at first glance, well yes, any type of society involves the use of force, since any property arrangement will involve the use of force. The question is which use of force can be justified, and hence, the imposition of force upon non-consenting criminal aggressors is legitimate, if you accept individual rights. What I think you mean to say is something more like "is initiation of force inevitable," however we are still left unclear, because since this arrangement doesn't initiate force, but only uses force against aggressors, it is hard to see how that can be so, as described at least. In your example of capital punishment, if capital punishment is justified, then preventing a murderer from being killed by the victim or his heirs is injustice to them, but if it is not, then it is injustice to the murderer. The answer depends on which law is in fact justified, and since law is a province of human reason, that is up to the legal system (the actual people producing laws) to discover.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

tadmjones,

 

My question is trying to determine the source of objective law. If objective laws are not discoverable like the laws of physics, then they must be created by man. How does man do this?  

 

The examples of the two laws in the original post demonstrate that two laws can meet Ms. Rand definition of an objective law but there will be disagreement over which law should be enforced. Again, this raises the question of how are objective laws created? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that contridictions do not exist. However, your reponse still leaves the question of how does the government know which law is rational and just? In the originial post I presented two laws and you responded that maybe neither is fully rational and that a third law could likely be rational. How does an individual, or a government, determine which is rational and which is not?

Short answer, by using the rules of logic to process the facts of reality into concepts and principles. Medium-length answer, ITOE. Long answer, all sorts of books written by honest people trying to answer the question "What is reason?".

This I do not understand in the context of Ms. Rand's essay. If a person, or group, rationally thinks that the government is enforcing unjust, irrational laws, that person then withdraws his or her consent to delegate the right of physical self defense to that government. At that point, according to Ms. Rand, the government has no rights because none have been delegated to it and the government ceases to be a proper government.

Where does Rand say that?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2046,

 

Thank you for the book suggestions. I will take a look at it.

 

As for my question, "is the use of force inevitable," upon review, I should have been more specific. The question would most likely be better phrased as, "is the use of non-retaliatory force inevitable?"

Okay, then I think I see what you are asking. So instead of treating you like an idiot, I'm going to attempt to make an honest interpretation of your question. You seem to be saying, in effect, okay, if the members of the government legislature determine something to be the law, and another group doesn't agree with that determination and withdraws their consent from that government, then isn't the government initiating force onto the dissenting group?

 

In other words, your question is about conflicting interpretations of justice. Like you mentioned, some people believe in the death penalty, some people think abortion is murder, some people think that if you violate certain religious laws you should get your hand chopped off, etc. If the government takes any particular stand on these parties, then aren't they forcing the other to act against their reason? Well, forcing others to act against their reason applies to parties who initiate aggression against someone else, who isn't aggressing. Since all these matters have to do with differing conceptions of force-application, the determination of who is forcing the other to act against their reason depends on which view is in fact justified. If, for instance, it is in fact justified to kill a murderer, then other people withdrawing their consent is of no consequence for the issue of justice. Here, we have to agree with Dante, that subjective agreement is not necessary for matters of justice, only what is in fact justified.

 

So then the second part of your question seems to be saying, okay what then, if only thing that matters in terms of justice is which view is in fact justified, but obviously this doesn't do away with there being conflicting interpretations on what that is. There are always going to be such conflicting interpretations because reason isn't automatic or self-guiding. Locke explains in his Letters on Toleration that having differing opinions of the requirements of justice is part and parcel of human nature, since these things aren't self-evident. Unanimity on questions of justice can never be expected in any legal order. The only thing you can do is have a way of dealing with them reasonably, and in a manner consistent with peace, cooperation, and individual rights. That is one of the whole points of a constitutional design that incorporates things like checks and balances and separation of powers, etc. so that people say, okay look, we have differing views on what is in fact objective justice, but we're not going to go around killing each other, cause that wouldn't be a nice place to live. Instead, we're going to cooperate, come to mutual agreements, have contractual clauses, arbitration to a third party, or have periodic elections that we agree to abide by so long as the results are fair, or stuff like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 If objective laws are not discoverable like the laws of physics, then they must be created by man. How does man do this?  

Why must objective law be discoverable like the laws of physics? To me the word 'law' has two different connotations in that statement.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2046,

 

In your third paragraph that reads:

 

 

So then the second part of your question seems to be saying, okay what then, if only thing that matters in terms of justice is which view is in fact justified, but obviously this doesn't do away with there being conflicting interpretations on what that is. There are always going to be such conflicting interpretations because reason isn't automatic or self-guiding. Locke explains in his Letters on Toleration that having differing opinions of the requirements of justice is part and parcel of human nature, since these things aren't self-evident. Unanimity on questions of justice can never be expected in any legal order. The only thing you can do is have a way of dealing with them reasonably, and in a manner consistent with peace, cooperation, and individual rights. That is one of the whole points of a constitutional design that incorporates things like checks and balances and separation of powers, etc. so that people say, okay look, we have differing views on what is in fact objective justice, but we're not going to go around killing each other, cause that wouldn't be a nice place to live. Instead, we're going to cooperate, come to mutual agreements, have contractual clauses, arbitration to a third party, or have periodic elections that we agree to abide by so long as the results are fair, or stuff like that.

 

Are you saying that since there can not be unanimity on questions of justice, the only thing man can do is to cooperate and come to mutial agreements on what justice is and what is justified?

 

If so, then based on your second paragraph, are you saying that once it is determined what is justified, then the government can enforce laws based on what has been determined to be justice without the consent of everyone?

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...