If you can't beat them, join them

[source]

I've found a few minutes to come back after reading in OPAR the section "The Initiation of Physical Force as Evil."

Let me quote a relevant paragraph first.

The only kind of "social pressure" that cannot be resisted by intellectual means is the kind that does not rely on intellectual means. If some group, governmental or private, tells a man: "Either you agree with us or we will clean out your bank account, break your legs, kill you," then a cognitive process on his part is ineffective; no such process avails in counteracting the threat. This, this category of threat of harm - physical force and nothing else - is what constitutes coercion. This is what sweeps into the discard the victim's mind.

What I want to know is this: does Peikoff here mean to say that for a reasonable man, there is absolutely no way out of this situation - that his only courses of action are to comply to the one with the gun or run away? Or does he mean that there are ways, only they are not to be morally evaluated/considered?

I think that there are ways, in certain situations, to do both - end the force being used against you, and keep your body and property intact - and to do so purely by intellectual means. As a general rule, you could first comply to the brute, and not only that but also leave him with the impression that you agree with him. I think that it is possible to say to someone "I agree" without actually believing it, if there is a good reason for it - for example, if you don't he'll either shoot you or empty your bank account. It is possible, by saying this, to gain the brute's trust and when you do, you have him right where you want him - you then have the power to undermine his position as an initiator of force, to expose him and to bring him to justice.

Of course, not every brute is worth dealing with in this manner - for that there is the government and the courts. But when the brute is the government, the state, or whoever wishes to call himself that way, then there really is no way out - all you get to do if you're not already in a prison, is to find a prison of your own and stay there until the madness is over. Is it not, in such case, the effort used to bring such government down worth anything? Is it not possible to infiltrate such government's structure - work as one of them (hence the topic title) in order to bring them down when the time is ripe? It's a risky course of action - but the alternative is to comply to their demands and live under their rule - or to run away (if there is such a place).

I saw in another thread a person asking about emergency ethics. Person 1 gives person 2 a gun to kill person 3 or die. What I'm suggesting, in effect is this: is it not ethical in such a situation, when you get the gun, to kill person 1?

[redfarmer]

Since you just read that section of OPAR, I will not discuss the nature of force, as I'm sure it's still fresh in your mind.

When dealing with force, you need to assess the force and the reprecussions for complying with the force and then decide on an individual basis what action to take. For example, if a man broke into your house, pointed a gun at you, and asked you, "Where's your wife? I'm going to kill her!" you probably wouldn't tell him where your wife was (if you valued her life that is).

On the other hand, you're exposed to force everyday. Everytime the government takes income taxes out of your check, you are being forced to give taxes to the government. However, most people comply with income tax laws because the penalty is worse than if you complied with the law (in most cases).

So, to summarize, you must ask yourself three things about force when analyzing it:

1. What is the nature of the force?

2. What will happen if I comply with the force?

3. What will happen if I don't comply with the force?

To answer your question about joining an immoral government institution, you would really have to be able to present a strong case for me to believe it would be moral in any situation. The obvious example is Alan Greenspan (there's another thread on him, of course). Ayn Rand said many times that it was moral to hold a government job as long as it was one which could be properly preformed by a private company in a free society (for example, the post office). However, it is immoral to hold a government job which could not be properly preformed under any situation (for example, the FCC, FTA, FDA, etc).

So, to summarize this point, it is pragmatic at best to believe that any good can come out of joining evil.

[AMERICONORMAN]

source:

Thanks for asking the question, it helped me realize something. Now I can check an historical example.

Americo.

[source]

To answer your question about joining an immoral government institution, you would really have to be able to present a strong case for me to believe it would be moral in any situation. The obvious example is Alan Greenspan (there's another thread on him, of course). Ayn Rand said many times that it was moral to hold a government job as long as it was one which could be properly preformed by a private company in a free society (for example, the post office). However, it is immoral to hold a government job which could not be properly preformed under any situation (for example, the FCC, FTA, FDA, etc).

The best example that I can think of at this moment are spies and secret agents. They sometimes infiltrate the ranks of an evil organization, posing as one of "their" men, to get information from them, which he will pass on to the authorities, which will then act to capture the real members of that organization. While, when infiltrating government ranks, you may not be able to deliver information to the "authorities," you may expose the criminal actions of the government through newspapers or by any other means.

[MisterSwig]

What I want to know is this: does Peikoff here mean to say that for a reasonable man, there is absolutely no way out of this situation - that his only courses of action are to comply to the one with the gun or run away? Or does he mean that there are ways, only they are not to be morally evaluated/considered?

I think what he means is that your reason is useless in stopping someone who is bent on using force against you. Reason doesn't stop bullets.

What you have to do is match force with force. You have to physically stop the oppressor. This can be done, for example, by buying a gun to stop the common criminal. Or, in another case, voting to put better politicians in office--ones that won't initiate force against you.

When there's no hope of peacefully removing a force-initiating government, then your only options are to suffer the oppression, attempt to flee to some other land, or instigate a violent revolt and forcefully change your government.

[Inspector]

It is not entirely clear to me, but it seems like you are asking if it is proper to answer an initiation of force with a lie?

A lie is a fraud, which is a form of force. Since it is proper to use force (the wider concept) to respond to an initiation of force, then it is proper to use fraud (the concept subsumed under the wider concept of force) to respond to an initiation of force.

[Tom Rexton]

...Ayn Rand said many times that it was moral to hold a government job as long as it was one which could be properly preformed by a private company in a free society (for example, the post office). However, it is immoral to hold a government job which could not be properly preformed under any situation (for example, the FCC, FTA, FDA, etc)...

Perhaps you mean to say that "it was moral to hold a government job as long as it was NOT one which could be properly preformed by a private company in a free society (for example, the post office)"?

Some of the other ABC agencies you cite as examples can and SHOULD in fact be properly private agencies (without the power to enforce their rules, of course). Many industries do have standards and regulations privately adopted. I imagine that purely private food and drug industries would do so as well. There may arise certain private institutes and associations that would check and test consumer products and provide recommendations, reviews and guides for consumers.

[Al Kufr]

What I want to know is this: does Peikoff here mean to say that for a reasonable man, there is absolutely no way out of this situation - that his only courses of action are to comply to the one with the gun or run away? Or does he mean that there are ways, only they are not to be morally evaluated/considered?

The answer is strategic positioning.

Our instinctual reactions to a challenge are “flight” or “fight,” running away or battling with others. Sun Tzu taught that neither of these reactions get us anywhere. Strategy is focused on progress. Hence Sun Tzu’s focus on positioning and advancing positions.

-Gary Gagliardi

Everything and I mean everything today is teaching people that flight and fight is all there is. There is never a word about strategy, positioning, or progress. 2,500 years ago, Sun Tzu saw how futile this was and warned us.-

--Gary Gagliardi

[redfarmer]

Perhaps you mean to say that "it was moral to hold a government job as long as it was NOT one which could be properly preformed by a private company in a free society (for example, the post office)"?

No, I meant to say what I did.

Some of the other ABC agencies you cite as examples can and SHOULD in fact be properly private agencies (without the power to enforce their rules, of course). 

I disagree. If a compnay or industry were to adopt their own company (or industry) wide rules and regulations, that would be perfectly moral. Companies and industries can and should adopt such laws. However, when the FDA steps in and tells someone what they have to do, this is government initiation of force and is completely immoral. It's the same difference as if a company adopts a policy of non-discrimination as opposed to a governement adopting a non-discrimination law (i.e. the Civil Rights Act, various "fairness" laws across the nation).