Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Split: On Anarchy

Rate this topic


AwakeAndFree

Recommended Posts

There is no such thing as the right to knowingly assist in the violation of rights, which is precisely what one does when one withholds evidence that could be used to convict a criminal.

You are conflating violating rights (which involves physical force) with witnessing a violation (which involves no physical force on the part of the witness). Seeing a crime committed and then saying nothing does not constitute the initiation of force, which is the only action that morally allows the state to use retaliatory force. Unless one believes that the state owns the bodies of its citizens, then no person may be rightfully compelled to say anything against his will. The fact that a case may be difficult to prove does entitle the government to take over a person’s body -- which is precisely what it does when it forces oral or written testimony.

Because it is a ridiculous non-sequitor.  It does not follow that since government can show evidence that certain, specific individuals were involved in the crime and can, therefore, compel them to testify, then the government can, without such evidence, arrest and detain any individuals it wishes.

You are already on record as accepting the legitimacy of using initiatory force and shifting the blame to the criminal: “Yes, it is an initiation of force, but it is the criminal, not the government that is trying to catch the criminal, who bears responsibility for this.” Since the government can shift all responsibility for initiating force against a witness to the real criminal, then why not in the case of suspects? Without the witness, the government cannot punish the criminal. Without suspects, the government cannot catch the criminal. You have not made a case for either coercing witnesses or shifting blame for coercion to another party.

One final point: if it is morally permissible to physically force a mere witness to testify, why not, contra 5th Amendment, empower the state to force those accused of crimes to testify? Why give greater protection from force to a suspect than a non-suspect?

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is no such thing as the right to knowingly assist in the violation of rights, which is precisely what one does when one withholds evidence that could be used to convict a criminal. 

How would you go about giving subpoenas to those who know about a crime but don't want to talk, or give testimony? How would the government prove that they do know information? Look into their brains? And are you suggesting imprisoning those who wish to withhold testimony? That sounds very statist if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are conflating violating rights (which involves physical force) with witnessing a violation (which involves no physical force on the part of the witness).  Seeing a crime committed and then saying nothing does not constitute the initiation of force, which is the only action that morally allows the state to use retaliatory force.

You are the one who is confused. I did not say that merely witnessing a crime is the equivalent of committing a crime. But the decision to withhold evidence and thereby knowingly assist the criminal makes you an accomplice after the fact.

Allowing an escaped convict to hide in your basement does not involve the initiation of physical force, but constitutes assistance to someone who does initiate force -- and that makes it wrong.

According to your position, one could knowingly fund and arm killers and extortionists without penalty, i.e. one could head a criminal enterprise and be beyond the reach of the law provided one always got someone else to do the actual initiation of force.

You are already on record as accepting the legitimacy of using initiatory force and shifting the blame to the criminal: “Yes, it is an initiation of force, but it is the criminal, not the government that is trying to catch the criminal, who bears responsibility for this.” Since the government can shift all responsibility for initiating force against a witness to the real criminal, then why not in the case of suspects?
The government is not shifting responsibility. The responsibility was always with the force initiator, the criminal.

Without the witness, the government cannot punish the criminal.  Without suspects, the government cannot catch the criminal.  You have not made a case for either coercing witnesses or shifting blame for coercion to another party.
My case is that assisting evil is also evil. Your case is that assisting evil is a right. So that is where we each stand.

One final point:  if it is morally permissible to physically force a mere witness to testify, why not, contra 5th Amendment, empower the state to force those accused of crimes to testify?  Why give greater protection from force to a suspect than a non-suspect?
The witness is not being compelled to give testimony that is self-incriminating, so everyone has that protection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are the one who is confused.  I did not say that merely witnessing a crime is the equivalent of committing a crime.  But the decision to withhold evidence and thereby knowingly assist the criminal makes you an accomplice after the fact.

Allowing an escaped convict to hide in your basement does not involve the initiation of physical force, but constitutes assistance to someone who does initiate force -- and that makes it wrong.

Harboring an escaped convict requires an action. Not speaking is a non-action. Since only actions constitute the initiation of force, then not speaking is a non-crime and would not be punishable under any system of law that respected individual rights, particularly the right to control one’s own body.

According to your position, one could knowingly fund and arm killers and extortionists without penalty, i.e. one could head a criminal enterprise and be beyond the reach of the law provided one always got someone else to do the actual initiation of force.

Funding and arming killers are actions. Actions which are a part of an enterprise to initiate force are criminal and should be subject to punishment. On the other hand, not speaking is a non-action and cannot be regarded as either the initiation of force or criminal.

The government is not shifting responsibility.  The responsibility was always with the force initiator, the criminal.

Then by the same logic we can state that the responsibility for loss of individual rights in a mass round-up of black males was always with the actual criminal, not the police who conducted the round-up.

My case is that assisting evil is also evil.  Your case is that assisting evil is a right.  So that is where we each stand.

If doing nothing constitutes assisting evil, then any citizen who does not stop a purse snatching or prevent an act of shoplifting or stop a bank robbery would also be “assisting evil” and would be subject to prosecution and punishment. Now, you may respond that a citizen’s intervention in these crimes would subject him to physical harm. But the same is no less true of a witness. Those who testify against criminals have later been found murdered.

The witness is not being compelled to give testimony that is self-incriminating, so everyone has that protection.

This does not answer the question. Why should self-incriminating testimony but not non-self-incriminating testimony be protected? Or, in your own terms, why punish the “assistants to evil” for not speaking, but not the evil-doers themselves for not speaking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this issue rightfully belongs to the science of law, and is not a simple question of philosophy. However:

Adjudication of laws via a court system is VITAL for the maintenance of a system of objective law, and proper judgements cannot be handed down unless the court has access to information. As with all parts of a government, the only tool available to a court is the threat of force; of finding "in contempt" etc.

Under objective law, the court has no power to order "mass round-ups" etc. It can only subpeona specific individuals KNOWN to have DIRECT knowledge involving the criminal matter being judged. Strip a court of this power, and it ceases to function as a court. Once a crime has happened, the authority of force must be used to handle the consequences, you cannot assume that people will just "be nice" and "settle things equitably"; this assumption leads to serious injustices as individuals are forced to take the law into their own hands.

Tom, I think your problem is that you equate the government's possession of SOME powers with the possession of ALL powers. Every great political thinker of the last few centuries has acknowledged that government is potentially a very dangerous thing (it's force, after all) and it must be carefully monitered, limited, etc. However, NO government devolves instantly into the tyrrany of mob-rule, as there is no objective way to determine how even a simple DISPUTE should be settled, much less a murder.

When there is no rational, objective means for men to deal with one another, brute force becomes the standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This does not answer the question.  Why should self-incriminating testimony but not non-self-incriminating testimony be protected?  Or, in your own terms, why punish the “assistants to evil” for not speaking, but not the evil-doers themselves for not speaking?

You are protected against being ordered to incriminate yourself because a lawful court requires OBJECTIVE evidence to convict someone of a crime.

Eyewitness testimony, failing any physical evidence whatsoever, is, I believe, not considered enough to indict someone for a crime. Eyewitnesses are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable; they can provide corroboration or explain how a chain of evidence was found/explored by the authorities, but all by their lonesome they aren't enough.

I.e. you need a corpse to have a murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this issue rightfully belongs to the science of law, and is not a simple question of philosophy.  However:

Adjudication of laws via a court system is VITAL for the maintenance of a system of objective law, and proper judgements cannot be handed down unless the court has access to information.  As with all parts of a government, the only tool available to a court is the threat of force; of finding "in contempt" etc.

But, as Ayn Rand pointed out, one person's needs are not a valid claim on someone else's property or freedom. By comparison, we can say that the fact that government and laws are necessary for civilization does not entitle the government levy taxes (initiate force) to finance its operations. Just as the government must respect property rights in its gathering of revenue, it must similarly respect free speech rights (including the right not to speak) in its gathering of criminal evidence. “A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may only resort to force only against those who start the use of force." (Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged)

Under objective law, the court has no power to order "mass round-ups" etc. It can only subpeona specific individuals KNOWN to have DIRECT knowledge involving the criminal matter being judged. 

It would be legitimate for a court to force information out of a witness only if the information inside a witness’s mind properly belongs to the court. However, under any non-contradictory system of individual rights, each citizen owns his whole body, including the contents of his mind. If we deviate from this principle, then what is to stop a court from employing medieval instruments of torture to pry information (supposedly owned by the court) out of a non-compliant witness?

Strip a court of this power, and it ceases to function as a court.  Once a crime has happened, the authority of force must be used to handle the consequences, you cannot assume that people will just "be nice" and "settle things equitably"; this assumption leads to serious injustices as individuals are forced to take the law into their own hands.

This goes back to the issue of one person’s needs versus another person’s rights. Forcing a person to speak against his will is simply another form of slavery. Ayn Rand: “No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man.” (“Man’s Rights”)

Tom, I think your problem is that you equate the government's possession of SOME powers with the possession of ALL powers.

No I don’t. I recognize the obvious differences between a constitutional republic and an absolute dictatorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be legitimate for a court to force information out of a witness only if the information inside a witness’s mind properly belongs to the court.

The court cannot force you to produce information (unless that information is given physical form, such as in a document), it can simply order you to appear and to testify. It has no control over the content of your testimony EXCEPT that if something you say is later shown to be PROVABLY false you've committed perjury.

What are the alternatives to the necessary subpeona system?

1. No government. We've already discussed why this is fundamentally unworkable.

2. No effort is made to discover information whatsoever; the government depends on people "volunteering". The government loses the power to investigate or prosecute a crime; victims are sacrificed to victimizers.

3. The government offers an incentive for appearance instead of a threat. Anyone who can offer a greater incentive becomes immune from persecution.

A citizen is someone who has turned over their personal right to exercise retaliatory force to a particular government in order to remove force from dealings among men. If a citizen initiates the use of force against another citizen (and there is no such thing as a crime that does not involve force of some kind) then the government MUST exercise its retaliatory powers, immediately and impersonally. Withholding (and I mean NOT VOLUNTEERING) information from a government acting in this capacity (for all individuals involved have delegated their right to retaliatory force to this government) is equivalent to assisting in an injustice, as has already been said.

In other words, to be immune from the threat of force, to NOT assist in a crime, all you need to do is to immediately report your information to the nearest legal authority. If you fail to do so, you become accessory to the crime, in which case the use of force against you in order to discover the facts is entirely justified.

In other words, there is no such thing as an "innocent" bystander to a crime. A lack of action where action is required IS a crime . . . neglecting one's child IS a crime, not fulfilling one's part of a contract IS a civil offense. You are not required to sacrifice yourself (try and stop a murderer, perhaps), but you ARE required to take action when action becomes possible, and failure to do so IS punishable under the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The court cannot force you to produce information (unless that information is given physical form, such as in a document), it can simply order you to appear and to testify.  It has no control over the content of your testimony EXCEPT that if something you say is later shown to be PROVABLY false you've committed perjury.

Then a subpoena is no different than military conscription. In both cases a citizen is ordered under threat of force to appear in a certain place at a certain time to render services to the government. If the draft is a form of slavery, then the subpoena is no less so.

A citizen is someone who has turned over their personal right to exercise retaliatory force to a particular government in order to remove force from dealings among men.  If a citizen initiates the use of force against another citizen (and there is no such thing as a crime that does not involve force of some kind) then the government MUST exercise its retaliatory powers, immediately and impersonally.  Withholding (and I mean NOT VOLUNTEERING) information from a government acting in this capacity (for all individuals involved have delegated their right to retaliatory force to this government) is equivalent to assisting in an injustice, as has already been said.

Only the initiation of force justifies retaliatory force. If a witness to a crime does not speak, he is doing precisely nothing. Doing nothing does not constitute the initiation of force, since doing nothing is by definition not the initiation of anything, much less of force.

In other words, to be immune from the threat of force, to NOT assist in a crime, all you need to do is to immediately report your information to the nearest legal authority.  If you fail to do so, you become accessory to the crime, in which case the use of force against you in order to discover the facts is entirely justified.

No. For the reasons given above and in my previous post, there is no duty on the part of a witness to testify. Obligations to others must be self-chosen. A witness to a crime had no choice in having the crime suddenly appear before his eyes. Nor has he by any action of his own incurred a duty to speak or write or appear in a court of law.

In other words, there is no such thing as an "innocent" bystander to a crime.  A lack of action where action is required IS a crime . . . neglecting one's child IS a crime, not fulfilling one's part of a contract IS a civil offense.

I never signed a contract to give testimony in all cases involving crimes to which I was a witness.

You are not required to sacrifice yourself (try and stop a murderer, perhaps), but you ARE required to take action when action becomes possible, and failure to do so IS punishable under the law.

Good. If a witness believes that testifying would place his life at risk, then in the name of anti-sacrifice he may rightfully ignore the subpoena.

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harboring an escaped convict requires an action.  Not speaking is a non-action.

Harboring an escaped convict requires only the "non-action" of not telling the police. There is no fundamental distinction between withholding evidence and not telling the police that there is a criminal in your basement -- both can be accomplished by choosing to remain silent.

Funding and arming killers are actions.  Actions which are a part of an enterprise to initiate force are criminal and should be subject to punishment.  On the other hand, not speaking is a non-action and cannot be regarded as either the initiation of force or criminal.
I'm glad you agree that hiring a killer should be a crime. I am mystified as to why you think that if you overhear such a hiring, you have a right to keep that knowledge from the police.

This means you are claiming the right to remain silent while an innocent man is put to death for a murder he did not commit. This means you are claiming the right to permit the violation of rights.

This is a typical libertarian position: in the name of liberty, you claim the right to allow someone else's liberty to be extinguished forever.

Then by the same logic we can state that the responsibility for loss of individual rights in a mass round-up of black males was always with the actual criminal, not the police who conducted the round-up.
In the first place, a withness does not "lose their individual rights". In the second place, there is an obvious difference between those who witness a crime and those that do not. In the third place, there is an obvious difference in a system that requires probable cause and due process and has multiple levels of appeal -- versus a police state that rounds people up without probable cause, without due process and without appeal.

If doing nothing constitutes assisting evil, then any citizen who does not stop a purse snatching or prevent an act of shoplifting or stop a bank robbery would also be “assisting evil” and would be subject to prosecution and punishment.
You are equivocating "withholding evidence" with "doing nothing" and then using this equivocation to argue that if one is not allowed to "do nothing", one is obligated to physically intervene to stop a crime.

But there is an obvious difference between providing testimony and using force to capture criminals. The use of force, except in certain circumstances, is the job of the police. Reporting the crime, then staying out of the way while the police do their job, and then cooperating with the police afterward, is not the equivalent of withholding testimony.

This does not answer the question.  Why should self-incriminating testimony but not non-self-incriminating testimony be protected?
Because the accused, who's rights are under attack by the state, deserves extra protection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harboring an escaped convict requires only the "non-action" of not telling the police. There is no fundamental distinction between withholding evidence and not telling the police that there is a criminal in your basement -- both can be accomplished by choosing to remain silent.

If one willingly and knowingly invites a criminal into one’s home, an action takes place. Any action part of an enterprise to deprive a person of his rights constitutes initiation of force and is properly subject to punishment. By contrast, if a criminal breaks into your home and you take no action, you are not guilty of initiating force. Your reasons for not speaking may stem from purely rational self-interest.

I'm glad you agree that hiring a killer should be a crime.  I am mystified as to why you think that if you overhear such a hiring, you have a right to keep that knowledge from the police.

The contents of a person’s mind are his property exclusively. The police are entitled to the contents of a citizen’s mind only by his consent.

This means you are claiming the right to remain silent while an innocent man is put to death for a murder he did not commit.  This means you are claiming the right to permit the violation of rights.

I oppose capital punishment. (See The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan. 1963) If the government sends an innocent man to the gallows, then it has not based its case on sound evidence and it is entirely responsible for the injustice. Regardless, no person’s needs constitute a claim on the property or freedom of another person. "No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as the right to enslave." (Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights”) Citizen A does not lose his right not so speak because of Citizen B’s need to prove his innocence. C does not lose his right not to take part in military service because D’s rights are being violated by an invading army.

This is a typical libertarian position: in the name of liberty, you claim the right to allow someone else's liberty to be extinguished forever.

In fact, my position is the opposite: no one has the right to extinguish someone else’s liberty, even for a brief moment. In the examples discussed, the state would be the aggressor: for executing the innocent suspect, and also for conscripting the witness into its courtroom. Now, if you wish to argue the opposite, then your position would be that rights are not absolute but conditional: A has a right to his property only if B is not in need of a part of A’s property. This is called pragmatism.

In the first place,  a withness does not "lose their individual rights".

That would mean there is no individual right to one’s own body. Accordingly, the military draft would be legitimate.

In the second place, there is an obvious difference between those who witness a crime and those that do not.

Then you will have to show why the former have no exclusive rights to their bodies and the content of their minds.

  In the third place, there is an obvious difference in a system that requires probable cause and due process and has multiple levels of appeal -- versus a police state that rounds people up without probable cause, without due process and without appeal.

I don’t deny this difference. I merely point out that neither a police state nor a constitutional republic owns the bodies of its citizens or the contents of their minds.

You are equivocating "withholding evidence" with "doing nothing" and then using this equivocation to argue that if one is not allowed to "do nothing", one is obligated to physically intervene to stop a crime.

Not speaking is by definition a non-action. Non-actions cannot be regarded as the initiation of force, since initiation implies action. “Government . . . may resort to force only against those who start the use of force." (Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged)

But there is an obvious difference between providing testimony and using force to capture criminals. The use of force, except in certain circumstances, is the job of the police.  Reporting the crime, then staying out of the way while the police do their job, and then cooperating with the police afterward, is not the equivalent of withholding testimony.

Because the accused, who's rights are under attack by the state, deserves extra protection.

If a witness is threatened with jail time for not speaking, his rights are under attack by the state. Nobody, not even a king on his throne, is entitled to someone else’s body or the contents of his mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contrary to what's been stated on this forum: this is no general duty to assist under the law.

I'd like to ask whether those asserting a general duty, if they've been to law school, have discussed the issue with an attorney, or have some other legal training that would warrant such a conclusion.

I find it amusing to watch those who haven't been to law school discuss legal matters. They are nearly always wrong.

Edited by Gabriel_S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one willingly and knowingly invites a criminal into one’s home, an action takes place.

You are evading the point. One may harbor a fugitive simply by refusing to say anything about his presence. Not saying anything, according to you, is a non-action and therefore is always acceptable. So, according to your position, harboring a fugitive in this fashion is acceptable.

This is a perfect example of how you switch arguments to evade a point, and it is an example of why a discussion with you never goes anywhere.

Consdier the following exchange for another example. In post 53 of this thread, I summarized my position and yours as follows:

My case is that assisting evil is also evil.  Your case is that assisting evil is a right.  So that is where we each stand.
You responded:

If doing nothing constitutes assisting evil, then any citizen who does not stop a purse snatching or prevent an act of shoplifting or stop a bank robbery would also be “assisting evil” and would be subject to prosecution and punishment. Now, you may respond that a citizen’s intervention in these crimes would subject him to physical harm. But the same is no less true of a witness. Those who testify against criminals have later been found murdered.

I claimed that you were equivocating and responded as follows:

You are equivocating "withholding evidence" with "doing nothing" and then using this equivocation to argue that if one is not allowed to "do nothing", one is obligated to physically intervene to stop a crime.

But there is an obvious difference between providing testimony and using force to capture criminals. The use of force, except in certain circumstances, is the job of the police. Reporting the crime, then staying out of the way while the police do their job, and then cooperating with the police afterward, is not the equivalent of withholding testimony.

Now, observe what you do in response. You quote only the first part of my answer before responding:

You are equivocating "withholding evidence" with "doing nothing" and then using this equivocation to argue that if one is not allowed to "do nothing", one is obligated to physically intervene to stop a crime.

Not speaking is by definition a non-action. Non-actions cannot be regarded as the initiation of force, since initiation implies action. “Government . . . may resort to force only against those who start the use of force." (Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged)

You evade the fact that you have equivocated and, with your contextless Galt quote, you switch to a completely different argument, which permits you to ignore the original point that you do not have a right to assist those who violate rights.

Observe what you do next: you quote the rest of my response about the equivocation plus my response to an entirely different question: Then you respond only to the latter while continuing to evade the former.

But there is an obvious difference between providing testimony and using force to capture criminals. The use of force, except in certain circumstances, is the job of the police.  Reporting the crime, then staying out of the way while the police do their job, and then cooperating with the police afterward, is not the equivalent of withholding testimony.

Because the accused, who's rights are under attack by the state, deserves extra protection.

If a witness is threatened with jail time for not speaking, his rights are under attack by the state.  Nobody, not even a king on his throne, is entitled to someone else’s body or the contents of his mind.

This is a basic pattern of many exchanges with you: when your position is challenged, you either ignore the challenge outright and/or you switch to a different argument. When Jennifer gives you two examples of how "non-action" can violate rights, you bring up the issue of written contracts (which might apply to one of the examples) and then you simply ignore the other example.

My original point stands: there is no such thing as the right to assist in the violation of rights. The decision to withhold evidence is the decision to help the criminal; such assistance makes you an accessory after the fact. By withholding evidence, you are creating an additional threat: namely, the threat that justice will be obstructed and rights unprotected.

Your position is that one has the right to assist criminals in this fashion, and my position is that one does not.

You have quoted Miss Rand’s statement that there can be no unchosen obligations. But that is quoted out of context. One clearly has an obligation not to violate the rights of others. And as corollary of that obligation, one has an obligation not to knowingly assist those who do violate the rights of others.

I know, I know, you will trot out your statement that, "Not even a king on his throne can claim ownership of the content of someone else's mind". But I say if the content of your mind includes knowledge of a crime, you have no right to help the criminal by hiding that knowledge.

The purpose of the concept of rights is to identify the conditions that must exist, vis-à-vis other men, for a rational being to survive. The purpose of government is to protect those rights. Your interpretation of rights would make the protection of rights impossible -- thereby defeating the entire purpose of rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never signed a contract to give testimony in all cases involving crimes to which I was a witness. 

You're a citizen of the country. You agreed to abide by the responsibilities of citizenship when you decided to remain a citizen after reaching your majority.

The question of who should and should not be considered a citizen under the purview of a particular government is a complicated one, however if you wish to enjoy the priviledges of citizenship (i.e. the various protections provided by a civilized government) then you must abide by the various RESTRICTIONS this places upon your personal "freedoms". Assisting the government in its functions is one of these. There are many more.

Liberty and freedom are not the same thing; liberty is freedom from UNDUE restraint. Freedom is complete freedom from a SPECIFIC infringement. Freedom from ALL infringement is a non-concept; a logical impossibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are evading the point.  One may harbor a fugitive simply by refusing to say anything about his presence.  Not saying anything, according to you, is a non-action and therefore is always acceptable. So, according to your position, harboring a fugitive in this fashion is acceptable.

Clearly there is a difference between activity and inactivity. Under the principles of Objectivism, no person is required to risk his life for another. If remaining silent prevents one’s throat from being slit, then one is entirely justified in saying nothing. This is altogether different from waving to a killer on the run and providing him with bed and breakfast during the course of a dragnet.

This is a perfect example of how you switch arguments to evade a point, and it is an example of why a discussion with you never goes anywhere.

(At the risk of committing tu quoque, I should point out that you have evaded my point that a subpoena is no different in principle from a military draft.) Since I responded to your post by differentiating between criminal and non-criminal activity, my reply could not have been more to the point. You’ll have to make better arguments if you want your discussions with me “to go anywhere.”

Consder the following exchange for another example. In post 53 of this thread, I summarized my position and yours as follows:

You stated that my case is “that assisting evil is a right.” Since I never made such an assertion, I am not obliged to defend it. I did you the courtesy of ignoring the accusation rather than calling you a liar.

Now, observe what you do in response.  You quote only the first part of my answer before responding:

You evade the fact that you have equivocated .

I considered my response sufficient to respond to your false assertion that I have equivocated "withholding evidence" with "doing nothing." But if you need further argument, here it is: certainly, a tax evader is withholding property from the government; a draft dodger is withholding labor from the military; a person who does not respond to a subpoena is withholding his mind and body from the clutches of state power. But none of these instances of withholding constitutes the initiation of force. And only the initiation of force can be subject to retaliatory force. On that principle see Atlas Shrugged or The Virtue of Selfishness. I won’t cite particular quotations to avoid being accused of quoting out of context.

and, with your contextless Galt quote, you switch to a completely different argument, which permits you to ignore the original point that you do not have a right to assist those who violate rights.

Since it has been my position all along that subpoenas are the initiation of force, a fact which you too acknowledged when you wrote, “Yes, it is an initiation of force . . .” (Post #46), it was entirely appropriate to discuss whether actions which do not initiate force can be the subject of criminal penalty. As to my quotation, if you believe that the context of the Galt quote changes its meaning, feel free to present evidence thereof. If you’d like I’d post the complete text of AS if copyright laws permitted.

Observe what you do next: you quote the rest of my response about the equivocation plus my response to an entirely different question:  Then you respond only to the latter while continuing to evade the former.

Why did I quote your text? Because it was in your post! I did not respond to the first part because it did not make any new points that had not already been addressed. You wrote:

“But there is an obvious difference between providing testimony and using force to capture criminals. The use of force, except in certain circumstances, is the job of the police. Reporting the crime, then staying out of the way while the police do their job, and then cooperating with the police afterward, is not the equivalent of withholding testimony.”

Now explain how this justifies the state’s initiation of force against non-compliant witnesses. This is what I’m waiting to hear.

This is a basic pattern of many exchanges with you: when your position is challenged, you either ignore the challenge outright and/or you switch to a different argument.

Unproven assertion.

Split into two posts to fix excess quote problem --JMeganSnow

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the remainder of Tom's post with too many quotes--JMeganSnow

When Jennifer gives you two examples of how "non-action" can violate rights, you bring up the issue of written contracts (which might apply to one of the examples) and then you simply ignore the other example.

Neither example constituted non-actions. My purpose in not responding was not to evade but not to offend. On this forum one has to be careful about contradicting moderators, as they can add brownie demerits to one’s Warn Level, which will ultimately result in being banned completely. Regrettable as it may be, on this forum each poster must carefully pre-censor his contributions. There is a thread about this elsewhere on Objectivism Online. By the way, Ais A, you can easily get rid of me by repeatedly reporting me to moderators; I’ll eventually be booted off the forum. Then you’ll have to deal with only easy opponents.

My original point stands: there is no such thing as the right to assist in the violation of rights.  The decision to withhold evidence is the decision to help the criminal; such assistance makes you an accessory after the fact.  By withholding evidence, you are creating an additional threat: namely, the threat that justice will be obstructed and rights unprotected. Your position is that one has the right to assist criminals in this fashion, and my position is that one does not.

By the same token you could say there is no such thing as the right to assist in the invasion of one’s country. The decision to withhold one’s labor in fighting the enemy is a decision to help the invader; such assistance makes one an accessory after the fact. By withholding military labor, one is creating an additional threat: namely, the enemy will take over the country without opposition. No, AisA, you have not said this, but this in principle is no different than your position on subpoenas.

You have quoted Miss Rand’s statement that there can be no unchosen obligations. But that is quoted out of context.  One clearly has an obligation not to violate the rights of others.  And as corollary of that obligation, one has an obligation not to knowingly assist those who do violate the rights of others.

Show how the original context indicates any meaning other than what the quotation expresses. Please provide references from Miss Rand’s writings to support your position that one may be forced by the government to testify against his will. Or even better, what exactly is Miss Rand’s general theory of obligations?

I know, I know, you will trot out your statement that, "Not even a king on his throne can claim ownership of the content of someone else's mind".   But I say if the content of your mind includes knowledge of a crime, you have no right to help the criminal by hiding that knowledge.

Provide an argument based on Objectivist ethics that government has a right to information in certain citizens’ minds and may use force to obtain such information.

The purpose of the concept of rights is to identify the conditions that must exist, vis-à-vis other men, for a rational being to survive.  The purpose of government is to protect those rights. Your interpretation of rights would make the protection of rights impossible -- thereby defeating the entire purpose of rights.

A government that “protects” some rights by violating other rights is operating on an ethical contradiction. Citizen A’s rights cannot be made contingent on the protection of Citizen B’s rights. If A has not initiated force against B, then he owes B no obligation and may not be forced by the state to contribute any of his labor or property in A’s behalf. Any system that holds that some men may violate the rights of others in order to secure their own rights is contradictory and therefore false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither example constituted non-actions. My purpose in not responding was not to evade but not to offend. On this forum one has to be careful about contradicting moderators, as they can add brownie demerits to one’s Warn Level, which will ultimately result in being banned completely. Regrettable as it may be, on this forum each poster must carefully pre-censor his contributions. 

If you think a moderator has been too harsh with you, take it to GreedyCapitalist; he's the owner of this forum and has ultimate power over who goes and stays. Everyone is required to pre-censor their contributions to ANY conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a citizen of the country.  You agreed to abide by the responsibilities of citizenship when you decided to remain a citizen after reaching your majority.

The question of who should and should not be considered a citizen under the purview of a particular government is a complicated one, however if you wish to enjoy the priviledges of citizenship (i.e. the various protections provided by a civilized government) then you must abide by the various RESTRICTIONS this places upon your personal "freedoms".  Assisting the government in its functions is one of these.  There are many more.

Liberty and freedom are not the same thing; liberty is freedom from UNDUE restraint.  Freedom is complete freedom from a SPECIFIC infringement.  Freedom from ALL infringement is a non-concept; a logical impossibility.

The social contract theory of government is entirely bogus. Under free market contract law, agreements can only be reached by the explicit and verifiable consent of each individual party to the contract. If I, Tom Robinson, "agreed to abide by the responsibilities of citizenship when (I) decided to remain a citizen after reaching (my) majority," then by the same token, you, Jennifer, must have agreed to a transfer of a portion of your income to the "needy" as the U.S. Congress has directed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The social contract theory of government is entirely bogus.  Under free market contract law, agreements can only be reached by the explicit and verifiable consent of each individual party to the contract.  If I, Tom Robinson, "agreed to abide by the responsibilities of citizenship when (I) decided to remain a citizen after reaching (my) majority," then by the same token, you, Jennifer, must have agreed to a transfer of a portion of your income to the "needy" as the U.S. Congress has directed.

I HAVE agreed to it. I do not agree that the government has the right to do so, and I am explicitly working in order to remove this power from it. I do, however, agree that a moral (i.e. rights-protecting) government has the RIGHT to do things that are necessary for it to exist, because I recognize that having NO government will result in evil of incredible scope. Helping the needy is not required for a government to exist; the ability to provide objective justice, including all the various things that are REQUIRED for such justice, ARE.

You are also arguing that rights exist in a vacuum, btw, as irreducable primaries. Anyone engaging in a violation of another individuals rights, whether directly or indirectly by witholding information, has given up their rights.

As for your various other examples, I direct your attention to such things as the witness-protection program. The government recognizes that it is not always easy or safe for individuals to testify. You can file an objection to a subpeona. It happens. Justice requires a careful measurement of alternatives and the full attention of an exacting mind. It is a SCIENCE, guided by basic principles, not a few principles that can be laid down and used without context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I HAVE agreed to it.  I do not agree that the government has the right to do so, and I am explicitly working in order to remove this power from it.  I do, however, agree that a moral (i.e. rights-protecting) government has the RIGHT to do things that are necessary for it to exist, because I recognize that having NO government will result in evil of incredible scope.  Helping the needy is not required for a government to exist; the ability to provide objective justice, including all the various things that are REQUIRED for such justice, ARE.

Yes, a “rights-protecting government” has the right to protect rights but not to violate rights. If we say that government has the right to violate rights in the name of protecting rights, then we are saying that the rights of some may be sacrificed for the sake of others, an utter slap in the face to Objectivist ethics which holds high the essential and universal principle than no force may be used against anyone other than the initiator of force. Thus any use of force against a non-compliant witness, a person who initiated no force but who refuses to speak, is an initiation of force.

You are also arguing that rights exist in a vacuum, btw, as irreducable primaries.

In fact, not. I am arguing from the principles set forth in “The Objectivist Ethics,” which neither exist in a vacuum nor support the use of force against a non-compliant witness.

Anyone engaging in a violation of another individuals rights, whether directly or indirectly by witholding information, has given up their rights.

Since withholding information, like withholding taxes or withholding labor in a military draft, does not constitute the initiation of force, it should not be subject to government scrutiny or punishment.

As for your various other examples, I direct your attention to such things as the witness-protection program.  The government recognizes that it is not always easy or safe for individuals to testify.  You can file an objection to a subpeona.  It happens.  Justice requires a careful measurement of alternatives and the full attention of an exacting mind.  It is a SCIENCE, guided by basic principles, not a few principles that can be laid down and used without context.

So subpoenas are okay as long as you can file objections to them? Does that make the draft and the income tax okay, since they too allow an appeals/exemption process? If in the end the government overrules your objection, who’s ethically right, you or the government?

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly there is a difference between activity and inactivity.  Under the principles of Objectivism, no person is required to risk his life for another.  If remaining silent prevents one’s throat from being slit, then one is entirely justified in saying nothing.  This is altogether different from waving to a killer on the run and providing him with bed and breakfast during the course of a dragnet.

Split into two posts to fix excess quote problem --JMeganSnow

So what? How is this relevant to the issue of whether one has the right to harbor a criminal by remaining silent?

(At the risk of committing tu quoque, I should point out that you have evaded my point that a subpoena is no different in principle from a military draft.)
I did not respond because it is a preposterous comparison. A subpoena requires a party to a crime to show up once to give evidence at trial, a process that, for the witness, normally takes less than a day. A military draft applies to those who are not a party to anything in particular and turns them into 24 hour a day slaves for years. Equating those two things is ridiculous.

It is similar to your attempt to equate the "threat" to a witnesses rights with the threat to an accused's rights. The witness need only testify and that is the end of their obligation and participation. The accused has no such option and faces, not a contempt citation and a night in jail, but possibly years in jail.

The witness is a party to a crime (an unwilling party to be sure), whereas at the time of the trial, the accused is not known to be involved at all.

You stated that my case is “that assisting evil is a right.” Since I never made such an assertion, I am not obliged to defend it.  I did you the courtesy of ignoring the accusation rather than calling you a liar.
You continue to evade the fact that your position amounts to claiming the right to assist criminals.

I considered my response sufficient to respond to your false assertion that I have equivocated "withholding evidence" with "doing nothing."  But if you need further argument, here it is:  certainly, a tax evader is withholding property from the government; a draft dodger is withholding labor from the military; a person who does not respond to a subpoena is withholding his mind and body from the clutches of state power.
None of this in any way justifies the assertion you made that compelling testimony means we must also compel citizens to arrest suspects, stop bank robberies, etc. You do remember saying that, do you not? This is yet another example of you switching to a different argument to evade a point.

It also is an example of another fallacy you commit: the fallacy of the false alternative. You claim that allowing the state to use force to compel anything means allowing the state to use force to compel everything. That is simply not true, as evidenced by the existence of the U. S. criminal justice system.

But none of these instances of withholding constitutes the initiation of force.
You continue to evade the fact that withholding evidence makes you an accomplice and represents a decision to aid the criminal.

And only the initiation of force can be subject to retaliatory force.  On that principle see Atlas Shrugged or The Virtue of Selfishness.  I won’t cite particular quotations to avoid being accused of quoting out of context.
But you did quote out of context. Are we to believe that when Miss Rand said, "There are no unchosen obligations.", she meant that one is, in fact, not obligated to respect the rights of others? Of course not. Obviously, then, the context of her remark would make it clear that her statement was not intended to negate the fact that one does have an obligation not to violate the rights of others, an obligation whether you chose it or not.

Since it has been my position all along that subpoenas are the initiation of force, a fact which you too acknowledged when you wrote, “Yes, it is an initiation of force . . .” (Post #46), it was entirely appropriate to discuss whether actions which do not initiate force can be the subject of criminal penalty.
The initiation of force that occurs as far as a witness is concerned is the criminal's action that makes the witness a potential, if unwilling, party to the crime. At that point, the witness has a choice: cooperate with the police or aid the criminal. A subpoena is only necessary if you choose the latter. The state did not initiate the force that put the witness in this position; the criminal did.

  As to my quotation, if you believe that the context of the Galt quote changes its meaning, feel free to present evidence thereof. If you’d like I’d post the complete text of AS if copyright laws permitted.
You ignore the fact that the point of deriving rights and of identifying the non-initiation of force principle is to identify the conditions required for rational men to co-exist. If you interpret or apply those principles in such a fashion that it is impossible for the government to protect rights, you have defeated the entire purpose.

Without the power to collect testimony, conduct searches (with warrants) and gather evidence, justice cannot be dispensed and rights cannot be protected. The result will be a society dominated by mobsters able to intimidate witnesses, able to deter property owners from allowing searches, able to collect protection money from terrified business owners and generally getting away with a great deal of crime. Do you suppose that is what Galt would advocate?

Why did I quote your text?  Because it was in your post!  I did not respond to the first part because it did not make any new points that had not already been addressed.  You wrote:

“But there is an obvious difference between providing testimony and using force to capture criminals. The use of force, except in certain circumstances, is the job of the police. Reporting the crime, then staying out of the way while the police do their job, and then cooperating with the police afterward, is not the equivalent of withholding testimony.”

Now explain how this justifies the state’s initiation of force against non-compliant witnesses.  This is what I’m waiting to hear.

The section you quote was intended to explain why doing the proper thing (notifying the police, cooperating as required, etc.) is not the equivalent of withholding testimony, i.e. it is not the equivalent of doing nothing.

The justification for compelling testimony is that those parties to the crime who withhold evidence have sided with the criminal and become accessories to his actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the remainder of Tom's post with too many quotes--JMeganSnow

Neither example constituted non-actions.

How is not feeding a child not a non-action? Why is withholding food an action, but withholding evidence is not?

My purpose in not responding was not to evade but not to offend. On this forum one has to be careful about contradicting moderators, as they can add brownie demerits to one’s Warn Level, which will ultimately result in being banned completely. Regrettable as it may be, on this forum each poster must carefully pre-censor his contributions.
Since Jennifer has cleared this up, you may now explain why it is not acceptable for a parent to engage in the non-action of not feeding his child.

There is a thread about this elsewhere on Objectivism Online. By the way, Ais A, you can easily get rid of me by repeatedly reporting me to moderators; I’ll eventually be booted off the forum.  Then you’ll have to deal with only easy opponents.
So you are the only one here able to articulate an argument?

I have no desire to have you banned. Such a thing is not within my power. But I do dislike the fact that your explicit advocacy of Libertarianism on an Objectivist forum implies a sanction and some degree of agreement between the two.

By the same token you could say there is no such thing as the right to assist in the invasion of one’s country. The decision to withhold one’s labor in fighting the enemy is a decision to help the invader; such assistance makes one an accessory after the fact.  By withholding military labor, one is creating an additional threat: namely, the enemy will take over the country without opposition.  No, AisA, you have not said this, but this in principle is no different than your position on subpoenas.
Incorrect. You could, properly, be compelled to turn over information about the invading army, just as a witness must tell what they know about a crime, but physically fighting the invading army is a job for the military just as physically fighting criminals is a job for the police.

If you knew for a fact when and where the invasion was going to take place, and then you refused to disclose this information to the military, then you would become an accomplice.

Please provide references from Miss Rand’s writings to support your position that one may be forced by the government to testify against his will.  Or even better, what exactly is Miss Rand’s general theory of obligations?
I do not claim to be advancing Miss Rand's position on subpoenas -- as far as I know she never addressed the subject.

I state only my own position: that everyone has an obligation not to violate the rights of others and, as a corrollary, one has an obligation not to assist those who do violate the rights of others.

Provide an argument based on Objectivist ethics that government has a right to information in certain citizens’ minds and may use force to obtain such information.
I have given you an argument: no one can claim the right to knowingly assist in the violation of rights.

A government that “protects” some rights by violating other rights is operating on an ethical contradiction.
The government is not violating anyone's rights because there is no right to assist a criminal.

Citizen A’s rights cannot be made contingent on the protection of Citizen B’s rights. If A has not initiated force against B, then he owes B no obligation and may not be forced by the state to contribute any of his labor or property in A’s behalf.
Citizen A gives up a portion of his rights when he decides to assist the criminal by withholding evidence.

If A owes no obligation to B, then A is not obligated to respect the rights of B and may assist those who violate the rights of B. That is what you are advocating, so do not call it a lie when I say your position is that assisting evil is a right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it amusing to watch those who haven't been to law school discuss legal matters. They are nearly always wrong.

We are discussing philosophical matters as they apply to this specific instance of legal action, not legal matters.

Please define what "general duty under the law" means and how it applies to this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are discussing philosophical matters as they apply to this specific instance of legal action, not legal matters.

Please define what "general duty under the law" means and how it applies to this discussion.

Hmmm. It seemed to me that the lines were at best blurred between philosophizing on the law and making affirmative statements on the law. I was prompted to post by these sort of declarations:

In other words, to be immune from the threat of force, to NOT assist in a crime, all you need to do is to immediately report your information to the nearest legal authority. If you fail to do so, you become accessory to the crime, in which case the use of force against you in order to discover the facts is entirely justified.

In other words, there is no such thing as an "innocent" bystander to a crime. A lack of action where action is required IS a crime . . . neglecting one's child IS a crime, not fulfilling one's part of a contract IS a civil offense. You are not required to sacrifice yourself (try and stop a murderer, perhaps), but you ARE required to take action when action becomes possible, and failure to do so IS punishable under the law.

If this discussion is meant to be theorizing about a hypothetical ideal not currently in practice, well, then what I'm about to say is not wholly applicable. However, if you're talking about what actually is the case under our current legal framework, then the above is not accurate for a couple of reasons.

Most importantly, there is a basic confusion and equivocation here between the generalization and the examples used for illustration. You say, "there is no such thing as an 'innocent' bystander to a crime." But, that's not true. A necessary component of a crime is the actus reus, the essence of which is a voluntary affirmative act, e.g., a shooting, stabbing, strangling, etc. Omission, that is failure to act, is not generally criminal. I.e., there is no general duty to act under the law. So, if you witness a hit-and-run, and fail to call the police, you aren't criminally liable (even if you are morally blameworthy). If you fail to stop a rape in progress, even if it wouldn't place you in jeopardy, you aren't criminally liable (even though you may be morally anathema). Having said that, omission might be actionable if one has a duty to act. That is to say, there is no duty to act unless: (1) by statute; (2) by specific and specified status relationship; (3) by contract; or (4) by voluntary assumed care of the person to the exclusion of others.

The second example listed was of a contract violation and not criminal wrongdoing (though a contractual failing may result in criminal culpability). Therefore, it's not relevant to the issue of whether or not there is such a thing as an innocent bystander to a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second example listed was of a contract violation and not criminal wrongdoing (though a contractual failing may result in criminal culpability). Therefore, it's not relevant to the issue of whether or not there is such a thing as an innocent bystander to a crime.

Fair enough. Is there a functional alternative to the subpeona system?

The statement that the government cannot violate anyone's rights under any circumstances is, I think, absurd; taken to logical extreme this would mean, in addition, that police could not make arrests of suspects (you don't KNOW they've committed a crime yet, so you're violating their rights) etc. I still think that Tom Robinson's position is the equivalent of treating rights as floating abstractions, without comprehending the necessary prerequisites for the protection of rights.

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...