Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objective justice

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

What constitutes an initiation of force?  What does it look like; how can we tell what it is?

 

In general terms, Ayn Rand said in Galt's Speech:

So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.

To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival. . .

 

 

Key here is "threat of physical destruction".

So to initiate force against someone is to threaten their continued existence, against which they may rightfully defend themselves in kind.

 

Now, to the present issue, what does this principle look like in concrete form?

 

I would contend that, if someone pulls a gun on you, you have the right to defend yourself with potentially lethal force.  And if it is later discovered that this was a toy gun which only happened to look highly realistic, I would still consider that force to be justified.

Meaning that giving the mere appearance of a threat suffices as an initiation of force- which is a clue.  This "threat of physical destruction" is based on the victim's interpretation.

 

Now, what if you believe that your nextdoor neighbor is a witch, and accordingly burn them alive?  Would that constitute self-defense?

I would not consider the appearance of witchcraft to suffice as an initiation of force (and I would further assume this to be consistent with Objectivism)- which is another clue.

This perceived threat, against which one may rightfully react violently, must be a rationally-formed conclusion.  It must be. . . Objective.

 

So, to initiate force against someone is to threaten their continued existence- from their RATIONAL PERSPECTIVE.  This simply means that one cannot run around pointing squirt-guns at people (because any objective observer would mistake it for a real gun), but one may point pretzels at them with impunity.

 

Now, if this is true, then it means that the Objectivist EPISTEMOLOGY is necessary to determine what does or does not constitute "force"- meaning that the Objectivist epistemology, as common knowledge, is necessary for ANY sort of free society at all!

 

Meaning, if I am not much mistaken, that the ONLY just society would be an Objectivist society, full of essential-Objectivists!  (Individuals who may not agree on the finer details of Objectivism, but have all the essentials down: reality, reason, virtue and rights)

 

Now, for the truly interesting part.

If this is true then apply it to Ayn Rand's criticism of Anarchy (i.e. that it lacks objectivity):

Visualize, for example, what would happen if a man missed his wallet, concluded that he had been robbed, broke into every house in the neighborhood to search it, and shot the first man who gave him a dirty look, taking the look to be a proof of guilt.

 

Suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A.

 

If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas.

 

 

What's the common denominator between each and every argument she brought against anarchism? . . .

 

-----------------------------------

I'll let the implications speak for themselves.

 

The question, in that case, then becomes: is this line of reasoning valid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now, what if you believe that your nextdoor neighbor is a witch, and accordingly burn them alive?  Would that constitute self-defense?

I would not consider the appearance of witchcraft to suffice as an initiation of force (and I would further assume this to be consistent with Objectivism)- which is another clue.

This perceived threat, against which one may rightfully react violently, must be a rationally-formed conclusion.  It must be. . . Objective.

 

So, to initiate force against someone is to threaten their continued existence- from their RATIONAL PERSPECTIVE.  This simply means that one cannot run around pointing squirt-guns at people (because any objective observer would mistake it for a real gun), but one may point pretzels at them with impunity.

I'm not ready to address the rest of your thread. But what you've presented here speaks to the insanity plea. It is a claim that you didn't act in malice or negligence. You just couldn't be trusted to use your mind in the right way at the time and are not morally responsible for your actions.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to post
Share on other sites

  I think its important to remember that you delegate your right to retaliation to the government. If a witch/thug/etc threatens you, just call the police/security and run away or hide. Fighting should only be used if it is your best chance for safety. 

 

   While in the wilderness or in some chaotic failed state, one can only expect to by appearing to be threatened. it is in everyone's best interests to be discreet and unthreatening in places like that. That is why if I go out in the wilderness I wear an orange hat, so hunters don't mistake me for prey from afar. On the other hand, hunter's are to never shoot at what can't identify. I think everyone can do something to avoid those kinds of accidents. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, to initiate force against someone is to threaten their continued existence- from their RATIONAL PERSPECTIVE.  This simply means that one cannot run around pointing squirt-guns at people (because any objective observer would mistake it for a real gun), but one may point pretzels at them with impunity.

 

Now, if this is true, then it means that the Objectivist EPISTEMOLOGY is necessary to determine what does or does not constitute "force"- meaning that the Objectivist epistemology, as common knowledge, is necessary for ANY sort of free society at all!

 

Meaning, if I am not much mistaken, that the ONLY just society would be an Objectivist society, full of essential-Objectivists!  (Individuals who may not agree on the finer details of Objectivism, but have all the essentials down: reality, reason, virtue and rights)

 

Now, for the truly interesting part.

If this is true then apply it to Ayn Rand's criticism of Anarchy (i.e. that it lacks objectivity):

 

What's the common denominator between each and every argument she brought against anarchism? . . .

 

-----------------------------------

I'll let the implications speak for themselves.

 

The question, in that case, then becomes: is this line of reasoning valid?

 

This line of reasoning is not valid.  Ayn Rand did not invent rationality or objectivity or common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Grames. An individual doesn't need to understand sensations, percepts, concepts, and all of their implications at a conceptual level to understand when someone is trying to kill them. Rand's epistemology is everyone's epistemology; it is how everyone implicitly navigate's the world. Her achievement was realizing this and presenting it in an intellectual capacity. If people really didn't use her espistemology, then they would probably be stumbling around like babbling idiots, if not dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dormin and Grames: yes, Ayn Rand's epistemology is the commonsense epistemology of most people made explicit.  I like to think that everyone is Objectivist from birth, in this sense; you never hear small children question the validity of the senses or external reality.

It is very widespread but it is not universal.

 

Case-in-point: There was a time when people actually DID burn witches at the stake in supposed self-defense, based on the notion that they spread plagues and poisoned livestock, which is ultimately reducible to their reliance on the Clergy as the ultimate arbiters of truth. . .  An epistemological failure.

The atrocities of the USSR were caused by their ideological affliction (namely Communism) and if you closely examine the most basic premises of Communism, it is also based on an epistemological failure- whose name was Marx.

 

An individual doesn't need to understand sensations, percepts, concepts, and all of their implications at a conceptual level to understand when someone is trying to kill them.

Not as such, no; but I'm not exclusively referring to the ITOE.

 

By "Objectivist Epistemology" I mean the entire framework, from Identity to Objectivity, perhaps in general and implicit outlines but at least as that.

 

 

If people really didn't use her espistemology, then they would probably be stumbling around like babbling idiots, if not dead.

If they never did, or used the exact opposite, then yes; they would be dead.

 

But does everyone on Earth agree with Rand?  Of course not.

And if everyone DID use Objectivist epistemology, fully and consistently, the world would already be Objectivist; there is no rational complaint against such which can last any amount of serious scrutiny.

So the fact that there are people who exist, and who disagree with us, speaks to the wide range of epistemological distortions around us.

 

"Epistemological distortion" would be evasion, you say?  Partly.  But what about children who are taught such distortions early on in life?

 

Anyone here who was Christian at any point can attest to the fact that they don't all evade reality, and yet a Christian would consider Supernatural Assault to be a legitimate threat- which would make a voodoo doll tantamount to attempted murder (and consequently a severe crime).

 

So there's evasion and then there's "because my mommy told me so" (not strictly a rational claim to truth- but difficult to find morally condemnable) and I believe there's only one other form of distortion, which has already been mentioned:

But what you've presented here speaks to the insanity plea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  I think its important to remember that you delegate your right to retaliation to the government.

Yes. . . When it's in your selfish interests.  I know, I know; 'when is violence ever good for anybody?'

 

Well, what if your government will only put some aggressor in jail for a few months and then let him go with a slap on the wrist, at which point he'll only come back with a literal vengeance?  Wouldn't it then be irrational to delegate your right to retaliation?

 

If the government is good then there's no reason for vigilantism, but if the government is bad then there quite simply is.  And if you can't revoke your right to retributive force then in what sense is it yours to delegate at all?

And if the government can do it but you cannot then what in Galt's name is it derived from?  Certainly not your rights.

 

The right to be avenged (but not to avenge yourself) by some anonymous entity, strikes me as very similar to the 'right' to be fed and housed by some anonymous entity.

 

But that's a thread-killing tangent, right there.

 

My argument about force, as a syllogism:

 

P:  Definition is a prerequisite of abolition (you cannot outlaw the unknown)

p:  To define violent force, let alone outlaw it, requires a certain epistemology (it's necessary for definition)

C:  Individuals cannot form a free society without a shared epistemology; Objectivist epistemology

 

The interesting part is taking all of the examples miss Rand listed of Anarchy turning into a perpetual bloodbath, and imagining what would happen if the characters were all intimately familiar with her writings.

 

For example: there's one about a man who discovers that his watch is missing and runs around shooting his neighbors, on the premise that hostile expressions are synonymous with guilt (an epistemological malfunction).

What if, instead, Grames or Don Athos were to discover their watch had been stolen (in an anarchist society)?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure you have been fed and housed by anonymous groups before, such as hotels and food chains. 

 

Anyways, all that is being asked of society is to use defense in a particular way, no one is being enslaved. 

 

I am not entirely sure what kind of situation you are talking about, but I would refer to my statements about the wilderness and areas under strife. 

Edited by Hairnet
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I am sure you have been fed and housed by anonymous groups before, such as hotels and food chains. 

 

Anyways, all that is being asked of society is to use defense in a particular way, no one is being enslaved. 

Yes, but the importance of being "fed and housed by some anonymous entity" is not in actual, concrete anonymity; anonymous groups are only groups of individuals, anyway.  The importance of it is as applied to rights. 

If I have "the right to be given X" then, in practice, that translates into my right to a specific person's X (which nobody may have).  Now apply this to retributive force:

 

We know that your right to avenge any crime against you is delegated to a proper government, but either you have the right to choose otherwise (as a vigilante) or you do not.  If you do not then what you ACTUALLY have is "the right to have X punished on your behalf, full stop."

Now, suppose you and I lived together in a society of three total members, under such a political design.  What happens if that third party violates my rights?

I cannot retaliate against him; that would be vigilantism.  This means that I have the right to have YOU retaliate against him, for me.  If so then, in fact, I have the right to your time and energy.

If I have the right to your time and energy then you do not; nobody has the right to violate rights (such as choosing not to punish X for me).  Anyone who does not have the right to their own time and energy is a slave.

 

With regards to the OP, what I have realized is that the proper prohibition of force requires the proper epistemology.  The greatest government and the best of intentions would be completely worthless without the correct epistemology.

What I have been hinting at, but have not yet made explicit, is the further realization that with the correct epistemology and delineation of rights, a government is superfluous.

 

Objectivists have historically favored a centralized government in order to clearly separate initiated force from retaliatory force; so that everyone immediately understands, whenever they witness violence, whether it is just or unjust violence.

But this requirement does not necessitate a centralized government.  Everyone could retaliate on their own behalf, so long as they and anyone who witnessed it were Objective about it.

 

Again, on this final point: reread miss Rand's critical examples of anarchistic violence and project how they would change if the characters were rational.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason why delegation of the use of retaliatory force is ideal, has to deal with the actual randomness, subjectivity, and emotions, ... chaos if you will, which can occur in situations where that retaliatory force would be needed, and the various factors which affect an individual's ability to fully exercise that right.

 

It is correct to assume not all men in society would be rational all the time... otherwise the "initiation of force" would not have occurred in the first place, and no retaliation would be necessary. 

 

Men who normally DO act rationally and peaceably in society may NOT be emotionally, mentally, or even PHYSICALLY prepared to properly and indeed to EFFECTIVELY exercise the RIGHT of the use of retaliatory force.  Other men also (third parties) have an interest in the VICTIM being both capable of not accidentally harming others and capable of dispensing justice (apprehending the perpetrator etc.).

 

These considerations lean heavily toward a devoted group of people, a branch or branches of a minimalist government, who have been delegated the power to use the retaliatory force according to OBJECTIVE standards.  These people would be trained, the issues not personal to them.  These people would also be held to a high accountability, non-harm to others, and importantly they are STRONG enough and armed enough to carry out the acts necessary for justice. 

 

 

Man IS man.  He is noble but fallible.

 

Anarchy is dangerous and inefficient and ineffective.  I submit that any group of rational Objectivists deciding how to deal with the use of retaliatory force would eventually settle on what Rand espoused.

 

There will always be bad men and good men who in extreme circumstances react imprudently.  By limiting the use of force and focusing it, all free individuals can bring to bear their requirements, expectations, need for accountability, etc. and as such "retaliatory force" itself becomes a known quantity, under scrutiny, on a leash... rather than a widespread and interspersed powder keg of death and violence roaming wild and free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

These considerations lean heavily toward a devoted group of people, a branch or branches of a minimalist government, who have been delegated the power to use the retaliatory force according to OBJECTIVE standards.  These people would be trained, the issues not personal to them.  These people would also be held to a high accountability, non-harm to others, and importantly they are STRONG enough and armed enough to carry out the acts necessary for justice. 

 Well, just to point out, this is basically one of the arguments Locke gives against anarchy, that there has to be a "dedicated group of people" so to speak, in other words, you're going to just have everyone sort of enforcing justice on their own, and there won't be any organization. Well, if we take this as a requirement of objective justice, it still doesn't follow that you have to have one monopoly organization for defense. You can have organization, or a "dedicated group of people" without having one monopoly group or organization. On the free market, each person doesn't make his own shoes, for example, but it doesn't follow that there must be one single monopoly shoemaking company. The alternative to government providing all the shoes is not that each person makes their own shoes. So, likewise, the alternative to government providing all the legal services is not that each person has to be their own independent policeman. There’s no reason that they can’t organize in various ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What constitutes an initiation of force?  What does it look like; how can we tell what it is?

 

 

The non-aggression principle or non-initiation of force principle doesn't tell you what an initiation of force is, neither does Rand's epistemology or any other part of objectivism or libertarianism. NAP just tells you that you have a right not to be aggressed against, it does not tell you what constitutes aggression, that has to be defined in terms of values outside of NAP itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is correct to assume not all men in society would be rational all the time... otherwise the "initiation of force" would not have occurred in the first place, and no retaliation would be necessary. 

This is entirely true.

 

Men who normally DO act rationally and peaceably in society may NOT be emotionally, mentally, or even PHYSICALLY prepared to properly and indeed to EFFECTIVELY exercise the RIGHT of the use of retaliatory force.  Other men also (third parties) have an interest in the VICTIM being both capable of not accidentally harming others and capable of dispensing justice (apprehending the perpetrator etc.).

This is also true, and an excellent reason for one person to retaliate on another's behalf- voluntarily.

 

Anarchy is dangerous and inefficient and ineffective.

How so?  Because danger, efficiency and effectiveness all imply alternatives and choice; some standard of measurement by which to determine such attributes.

So anarchy is 'dangerous, inefficient and ineffective' by what standard and by comparison to which alternatives?

 

And what, precisely, do you mean by 'anarchy'?  Because I'm not referring to a lawless society of pragmatic nihilists; that would be dangerous.

What I am referring to would be a society of rational individuals, governed by certain specific laws but without any centralized enforcement agency.

 

I submit that any group of rational Objectivists deciding how to deal with the use of retaliatory force would eventually settle on what Rand espoused.

Possibly.  It would be better (for me) to have someone else punish my criminal and save me the time and energy; accordingly any Objectivist society very well might decide to delegate its retaliatory force, out of pure selfishness.  And that would be completely proper.

But it's beside the point.  I'm not disputing the justice of a rightful Objectivist government; I'm disputing its necessity.

 

There will always be bad men and good men who in extreme circumstances react imprudently.  By limiting the use of force and focusing it, all free individuals can bring to bear their requirements, expectations, need for accountability, etc. and as such "retaliatory force" itself becomes a known quantity, under scrutiny, on a leash... rather than a widespread and interspersed powder keg of death and violence roaming wild and free.

Limiting- how?  By forbidding that anyone use it without authorization?

If your right to retaliatory force must NECESSARILY be delegated (i.e. you can be forbidden to use it, yourself) then you have no such right and no delegation has taken place.

 

A businessman may delegate various assignments and decisions to his secretary, on the premise that he'll approve of the choices she makes.  And if he ever decides otherwise then he's free to fire her and delegate to someone else or simply do it himself.

But if a secretary ever told her boss that he couldn't fire her; that if he attempted any such thing, she would take a sledgehammer to his kneecaps- she would no longer be acting on his behalf.

 

And if you have no such right to avenge the violations of your rights, then anyone strong enough to overpower you in any single instance has- in fact, if not in name- the right to rob or enslave you.

---

 

Yes, if everyone in a society voluntarily delegates their retaliation, that's okay (and hugely beneficial).  But if a single individual chooses otherwise, so long as he isn't INITIATING force against anyone, nobody has the right to tell him "no".

There is a massive difference between delegating your rights and having them taken at gunpoint.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, likewise, the alternative to government providing all the legal services is not that each person has to be their own independent policeman. There’s no reason that they can’t organize in various ways.

Very much so.

And, so long as all of these organizations were formed voluntarily, I would take great pleasure in the opportunity to choose one (or none at all)!  :thumbsup:

 

The non-aggression principle or non-initiation of force principle doesn't tell you what an initiation of force is, neither does Rand's epistemology or any other part of objectivism or libertarianism.

Really?  I swear there's been some Objectivist literature on exactly that question. . .

In any case, that's the core issue of creating a free society.  It isn't defining the proper anatomy of government; that's tangential.  It's defining the proper delineation of rights.

 

It doesn't matter who defends whose rights, as long as everyone's rights are preserved.

Accordingly, if you know the proper boundaries between one person's rights and another's, deciding on a form of government is trivial (really a formality).  If you don't, NO form of government can help you!

 

So it doesn't even matter whether we have a government, or many competing governments or none at all; what matters is that whoever takes the responsibility of defending individual rights, knows what they're doing.

Which is part of why avenging my own rights appeals to me.  :P

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites

What constitutes an initiation of force?  What does it look like; how can we tell what it is?

We can tell what it is from basic Physics. But that won't answer your questions.

Instead, the concept of individual rights is what's central to Objectivist Politics and crucial for understanding the concept of justice.

I would contend that, if someone pulls a gun on you, you have the right to defend yourself with potentially lethal force.

Yeah, that one's pretty obvious though.

On the other hand, a society requires a lot less obvious rules as well, to function well. Let's say I show up in North America, and fence myself up a farm on the territory of an Indian tribe. Who has the right to this farm now, based on the principle "thou shalt not initiate force"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

HD:

 

 

1.If an Objectivist society is someday founded (on a planet out there for example) would it be proper for that society to have ANY form of Government?

 

If your answer to 1. is NO then the following are inapplicable.

 

2. If an Objectivist government is formed are you in agreement that its sole function/role is the protection of individual rights?  (This is the Objectivist position on the proper role of government... please watch Yaron Brook's debate with Miles Rapoport on the "Proper Role of Government")

 

3.  Does this protection of individual rights via a government require the codification, agreement, creation of an objective standard, i.e. Laws?  Or can there be such a thing as a "lawless" government, or the "arbitrary" protection of individual rights?

 

4. To protect individual rights according to an objective standard set of laws do you believe there is a functional/phenomenological necessity for the government to protect rights from foreign invaders, adjudicate disputes and contracts, actualize/enforce contracts and protect citizens from internal criminals, or do you believe the necessity only extends to a subset of these (or perhaps other functions) and why?

 

5. Suppose, if necessary, there is a branch of government which ensures enforcement of contracts and ensures protection of individuals i.e. actualization of justice rather than merely pointing out what is wrong and what should happen... and we call it the police:

 

a.  Does it matter who the particular individuals that make up that branch are.  i.e. hobbies, personalities, affiliations?

b.  Does it matter how the particular individuals in that branch are organized and paid?

c.  Does it matter whether or NOT the OBJECTIVE STANDARDS i.e. the laws adopted by the entire objectivist society for the protection of individual rights ARE FOLLOWED by the individuals in this branch?

 

d.  If someone, anyone, any organization, sub-organization, and group of people serving the function of this branch act outside of the LAW or ignore the OBJECTIVE STANDARDS of JUSTICE... who dispenses, actualizes, performs the enforcement functions to bring them in line?

 

 

I submit the answer to d. is the military.

 

6.  Can a government temporarily delegate to one or more parties the branches or functions it oversees/is in charge of?  As long as it remains administered, does the organizational status, employment versus contractor, matter?

 

7.  What is the overarching definition of the government which has specific roles delegated by individuals but can see that they are carried out by any lawful means/organization/mechanism?

 

I submit the answer to 7. is the adherence to the objective standards or the law.

 

 

 

My conclusion is not that there is NO branch of government which acts to protect individual rights and enforce contracts, my answer is that those functions which involve the use of force should be "limited to" proper use in accordance with objective standards i.e. the law, and hence SOME body, person, group, people are "responsible" to ensure the branch of government entrusted with those functions works, whether or not it involves contractors, organizations, private security, individuals, etc.  Strict adherence to the functions, acting on behalf of the government, which in turn is acting as central (yes central) delegate is likely necessary to live in a rational peaceful society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead, the concept of individual rights is what's central to Objectivist Politics and crucial for understanding the concept of justice.

Yes.  Both are part of the same concept, though; whatever doesn't initiate force is rightful, and whatever does is not rightful.  They're exact opposites.

 

Let's say I show up in North America, and fence myself up a farm on the territory of an Indian tribe. Who has the right to this farm now, based on the principle "thou shalt not initiate force"?

It depends.

If that land was actually being disposed of, and you had to raze some tepees in order to settle it, then you've initiated force against them and deserve swift justice.

If, however, that land wasn't being used by anybody and was simply considered part of the tribe's "territory" for no real reason at all, then it's your right to settle there and they would be initiating force if they attacked you.  (Pennies on the sidewalk)

Within this context there's also a third option, in which some areas might be in use but in ways not visibly apparent (such as hunting grounds), in which case to settle there is a form of harm- but not intentional.  The natives would be justified in suing for damages (and you would be obligated to pay them for that land) but nobody would be justified in retaliating against anybody.

 

1.If an Objectivist society is someday founded (on a planet out there for example) would it be proper for that society to have ANY form of Government?

So long as it's founded voluntarily; of course.

 

2. If an Objectivist government is formed are you in agreement that its sole function/role is the protection of individual rights?  (This is the Objectivist position on the proper role of government... please watch Yaron Brook's debate with Miles Rapoport on the "Proper Role of Government")

I do.

And I would be delighted to watch that if you could provide some sort of link?  I love Yaron Brooks.  :thumbsup:

 

3.  Does this protection of individual rights via a government require the codification, agreement, creation of an objective standard, i.e. Laws?  Or can there be such a thing as a "lawless" government, or the "arbitrary" protection of individual rights?

Absolutely; laws have to precede governance.  You can't enforce what you haven't defined yet.

 

4. To protect individual rights according to an objective standard set of laws do you believe there is a functional/phenomenological necessity for the government to protect rights from foreign invaders, adjudicate disputes and contracts, actualize/enforce contracts and protect citizens from internal criminals, or do you believe the necessity only extends to a subset of these (or perhaps other functions) and why?

Foreign invaders, internal criminals and deadbeats are all actually part of the same category; people who initiate force against others.  So yes, I agree with all of those.

I do not agree that anyone is necessary to adjudicate honest disputes between rational and objective people because- IF the disagreement is honest and IF everyone involved is being rational- then by definition, it'll sort itself out.

 

For instance: as in my response to Nicky's question, to accidentally settle some land which was already being disposed of would constitute an honest disagreement.  The natives, aware of how they needed that land, would be rightfully outraged.  The settlers, who knew no such thing, would find this assertion as somewhat of a shock to say the least.

However, so long as both parties wanted to know the truth, recognized the contextual nature of knowledge and wanted to solve things peacefully, they would be perfectly capable of solving the problem themselves.

 

Now, if either one of the parties isn't being fully honest then the whole thing falls apart- but such dishonesty would constitute fraud and, consequently, a crime.  And that's why I don't consider that function strictly necessary.

 

5. Suppose, if necessary, there is a branch of government which ensures enforcement of contracts and ensures protection of individuals i.e. actualization of justice rather than merely pointing out what is wrong and what should happen... and we call it the police:

 

a.  Does it matter who the particular individuals that make up that branch are.  i.e. hobbies, personalities, affiliations?

b.  Does it matter how the particular individuals in that branch are organized and paid?

c.  Does it matter whether or NOT the OBJECTIVE STANDARDS i.e. the laws adopted by the entire objectivist society for the protection of individual rights ARE FOLLOWED by the individuals in this branch?

d.  If someone, anyone, any organization, sub-organization, and group of people serving the function of this branch act outside of the LAW or ignore the OBJECTIVE STANDARDS of JUSTICE... who dispenses, actualizes, performs the enforcement functions to bring them in line?

a.  Not at all, so long as they understand the essentials.

b.  Nope.

c.  Absolutely; emphatically so.

d.  Trick question.

You're assuming that if the police break the law, some sort of super-police agency is necessary to punish them for it, but there's a catch:  Who watches the watchers?

You could have a circular system of checks and balances, like the American government, and each branch could corrupt the next one over as the whole thing gradually rots.  Or you could try your hand at an infinite regress.

 

Which is why the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment- coincidentally how I'd answer your question.  Rebellion.  B)

 

6.  Can a government temporarily delegate to one or more parties the branches or functions it oversees/is in charge of?  As long as it remains administered, does the organizational status, employment versus contractor, matter?

Yes, it can delegate.

It doesn't matter who punishes criminals as long as someone does it, and does it properly.

 

7.  What is the overarching definition of the government which has specific roles delegated by individuals but can see that they are carried out by any lawful means/organization/mechanism?

 

I submit the answer to 7. is the adherence to the objective standards or the law.

I don't understand the question.

Are you saying that a government is a mechanism for accountability; a way for everyone to see that retaliatory force is being used justly?  I would agree with that.

Are you saying that the essential attribute of a proper OBJECTIVIST government is adherence to the law?  Because that's true as well- if you're trying to isolate it from all other governments throughout history.

 

Could you rephrase 7 and your conclusion, please?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 years later...
3 hours ago, Maxamuud Muuse Muse Cawaale said:

What are the objectives of justice

One plausible starting point in this forum would be from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and it's chapter dealing with Definitions::

Spoiler

What fact of reality gave rise to the concept “justice”? The fact that man must draw conclusions about the things, people and events around him, i.e., must judge and evaluate them. Is his judgment automatically right? No. What causes his judgment to be wrong? The lack of sufficient evidence, or his evasion of the evidence, or his inclusion of considerations other than the facts of the case. How, then, is he to arrive at the right judgment? By basing it exclusively on the factual evidence and by considering all the relevant evidence available. But isn’t this a description of “objectivity”? Yes, “objective judgment” is one of the wider categories to which the concept “justice” belongs. What distinguishes “justice” from other instances of objective judgment? When one evaluates the nature or actions of inanimate objects, the criterion of judgment is determined by the particular purpose for which one evaluates them. But how does one determine a criterion for evaluating the character and actions of men, in view of the fact that men possess the faculty of volition? What science can provide an objective criterion of evaluation in regard to volitional matters? Ethics. Now, do I need a concept to designate the act of judging a man’s character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion? Yes. That concept is “justice.”

 

Link to post
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...