Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Split: On Anarchy

Rate this topic


AwakeAndFree

Recommended Posts

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.

Oh, I'm sorry if you mistook what I was saying as an attack on the legitimacy of the subpeona system. In any event, I didn't intend it to be.

I think the necessity of the subpoena system can be articulated sufficiently, but in a manner which avoids the pitfalls I mentioned. That is to say, your argument, I believe, had it partly right. Reformulated with the proper and precise understanding of the legal concepts, it would establish the necessary existence of procedural and evidentiary mechanisms, such as the subpeona system (and others as well).

The bottom line is that I don't think that the subpeona system is a violation of rights, I believe it is necessary, and that it can be defended. However, I'm not certain if I've seen that done here adequately yet. But I think your heart's in the right place! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The bottom line is that I don't think that the subpeona system is a violation of rights, I believe it is necessary, and that it can be defended. However, I'm not certain if I've seen that done here adequately yet. But I think your heart's in the right place! :)

AisA is doing a better job than I am, to be sure. I have a clear grasp of the necessary results of destruction of the subpeona system (as well as the government in general), but I am having a difficult time articulating the logical structure of my ideas.

I have an "intuitive" mind; it projects a huge chain of complex results based on little data because I have massive amounts of data already integrated into my subconscious. In order to convince someone else of the validity of my ideas, I have to do the grunt work of going all the way backwards along my chain of "intuitive" reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA:

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

Robinson:

Since no one has a duty to risk his life on behalf of another, a citizen has no duty to speak if speaking will result in his life being taken or harmed.

AisA:

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.

Robinson: The American Heritage Dictionary defines “party” as “A person or group involved in an enterprise.” By this definition, a person who by pure accident happens to see a crime take place in front of his eyes is no more a party to that crime than someone who happens to sit on the jury. Now, if it is your position that Witness A can be made subject to initiatory force due to the actions of Criminal B, then you will have to square this with “The Objectivist Ethics”: “Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.”

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

First of all, the duration of involuntary servitude is utterly irrelevant to whether or not it is immoral. If I am morally forbidden to make you my slave for three years, by what right can I make you may slave for a day or an hour? More importantly, you have not offered any essential distinction between the involuntary servitude of the subpoena and the involuntary servitude of the draft. As I have already shown, witnessing a crime is an unbidden, uncontracted, involuntary action. Witnesses are created not by their own choice but by the actions of others. Therefore, following your view, if a witness can incur a duty entirely through the actions of another person (the criminal), then by the same logic a young man can incur a duty to serve his country entirely through the actions of an invading army. If you can declare the witness to be a “party” to a murder, I can say with similar linguistic imprecision that able young men are “parties” to the war being waged in their country.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

Certainly the accused has the right to present evidence on his behalf -- but not if that evidence requires violating the rights of another. If a witness has complete rights over his body (including the right not to speak), then those rights are not surrendered by the actions of another person, in this case, a criminal . The needs of the accused are not an entitlement to the property or labor of others, anymore than the needs of a population for national defense are an entitlement to the labor of 18-year old men.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

If, before the trial, the accused is not not known to be involved at all, by what method is it determined that the witness is involved?

AisA:

You continue to evade the fact that your position amounts to claiming the right to assist criminals.

Robinson:

Then, by the same (weak) logic, refusing a draft notice amounts to claiming the right to assist an invading army.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

But surely if your position is that forced labor may be used in a courtroom to help an accused man, why would you object to force (or the threat thereof) in order to make bystanders help a woman about to be raped? If, in order to save a defendant from conviction, it is appropriate to punish a witness who refuses to speak, why would it not be appropriate to punish a bystander who did nothing to save a woman from brutal violation?

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

This is an example of the Straw Man fallacy. I have never said “allowing the state to use force to compel anything means allowing the state to use force to compel everything.” My position is nothing more or less than what Ayn Rand stated in her “Objectivist Ethics”: “Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.”

AisA:

You continue to evade the fact that withholding evidence makes you an accomplice and represents a decision to aid the criminal.

Robinson:

Refuted above.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

By refusing to speak, Witness A would be violating Accused B’s rights ONLY if B had ownership over the portion of A’s mind that was relevant to the trial. Now, if you do not believe that A’s mind and body are owned by anyone other than A, then A’s refusal to submit his body to B’s (or the state’s) commands is clearly NOT a violation of B’s rights. On the other hand, if you believe that B (or the state) has property rights in A’s mind, then it follows that not only may they threaten A with jail time, but also B (or the state) would be morally entitled to use torture to extract their property from A’s mind, as A would have no right to withhold it.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

Since B’s property rights do not include the content of A’s mind, A violates no one’s rights by refusing to speak.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

If it is the criminal, not the witness, that initiated force, then retaliatory force should be directed at the former not the latter. Once the state uses force against someone who did not initiate it, then the state becomes the violator of rights (the criminal). Furthermore, if it is your position that a subpoena is the initiation of force, then the witness should be entitled to self-defense. Just as the draft resister is acting morally by evading the involuntary slavery of the draft, a witness would be acting morally by evading the involuntary slavery of a forced testimony.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

If you interpret rights and the non-initiation of force principle as a permit to commit involuntary servitude, then you have defeated the entire purpose of individual rights.

AisA:

Without the power to collect testimony, conduct searches (with warrants) and gather evidence, justice cannot be dispensed and rights cannot be protected.

Robinson:

With similar fallacious reasoning, the state could declare that without the right to draft millions of men, rights cannot be protected. Any theory that rights are protected by violating the lives or property of some for the benefit of others is self-contradictory and therefore logically invalid.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

My position against intimidating witnesses is consistent. Anyone who threatens a witness with loss of life, property or liberty has committed a rights violation and should be subject to punishment. Therefore, any prosecutor who threatens a non-compliant witness with jail time, should face jail time himself.

AisA:

Do you suppose that is what Galt would advocate?

Robinson:

Galt would not advocate protecting rights of some by violating the rights of others, for that position would be self-contradictory.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

Unproven assertion. A witness who refuses to speak may not have sided with the criminal at all but instead may be acting in his rational self-interest to avoid the violent repercussions of giving testimony.

AisA:

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

Robinson:

If it is one’s own child, then feeding it is not an unchosen obligation.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

See previous response.

AisA:

So you are the only one here able to articulate an argument?

Robinson:

Search the forum archives. If you cannot find other objections to the use of subpoenas, then my posts will have to suffice.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

I cannot respond because I have been officially forbidden to participate in discussions of libertarianism.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

Since the contents of an individual’s mind are his by right, no one may morally use force against him in order to gain access to those contents. Ordering a citizen under threat of jail time to render services to the government is a violation of his rights, whether the violation is being done by a draft board or by a court of law.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

As explained at length above, the state does not have the right to force anyone to speak.

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA:

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

Robinson:

Since no one has a duty to risk his life on behalf of another, a citizen has no duty to speak if speaking will result in his life being taken or harmed.

Do you or do you not think that one has the right to assist in the violation of rights?

AisA:

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.

Robinson: The American Heritage Dictionary defines “party” as “A person or group involved in an enterprise.”  By this definition, a person who by pure accident happens to see a crime take place in front of his eyes is no more a party to that crime than someone who happens to sit on the jury.

The witness was present when the crime was committed and has evidence that can help the police identify the criminal; that makes the witness a party to the crime. None of this applies to a juror: he was not present when the crime was committed, he does not have evidence that can help the police identify the criminal, and he is a party to the administration of justice, not the crime itself.

AisA:

You continue to evade the fact that your position amounts to claiming the right to assist criminals. 

Robinson:

Then, by the same (weak) logic, refusing a draft notice amounts to claiming the right to assist an invading army.

This is really the essence of the issue, and it shows how you attempt to evade the issue.

I have already explained that it is the army and the police's responsibility to physically fight an invading army or criminals -- and that the private citizen's obligation in each case is only to provide any information or evidence that they may have.

But, ignoring that explanation, you simply repeat a (false) analogy without mentioning or addressing what I have said about that analogy.

You completely ignore the obvious distinctions -- which I have now explained several times -- between a witness to a crime and a random citizen.

Since I know that you are intelligent enough to grasp those distinctions, I am left with only one explanation for your on-going refusal to acknowledge them.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

But surely if your position is that forced labor may be used in a courtroom to help an accused man, why would you object to force (or the threat thereof) in order to make bystanders help a woman about to be raped?  If, in order to save a defendant from conviction, it is appropriate to punish a witness who refuses to speak, why would it not be appropriate to punish a bystander who did nothing to save a woman from brutal violation?

I have already answered this and you have ignored the answer: physically fighting the criminal is the responsibility of the police.

AisA:

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

Robinson:

This is an example of the Straw Man fallacy.  I have never said “allowing the state to use force to compel anything means allowing the state to use force to compel everything.”

Anyone who reads this thread will see otherwise. For instance, one of your first posts on this topic was to make the claim that if we grant subpoena power, we must tolerate mass arrests, warrantless searches and suspension of trial-by-jury. You have offered such arguments repeatedly.

AisA:

You continue to evade the fact that withholding evidence makes you an accomplice and represents a decision to aid the criminal.

Robinson:

Refuted above.

Evaded, yes. Refuted, no. When I explain repeatedly that physically fighting criminals is the responsibility of the police, and yet you continue to argue that compelling a witness to give testimony means the state can also compel him to physically intervene in crimes, then you are simply evading an argument, not answering it.

Man has an obligation not to violate the rights of others and, as a corollary, an obligation not to help those who do violate the rights of others. You haven't even mentioned this position, let alone refuted it!

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

By refusing to speak, Witness A would be violating Accused B’s rights ONLY if B had ownership over the portion of A’s mind that was relevant to the trial. Now, if you do not believe that A’s mind and body are owned by anyone other than A, then A’s refusal to submit his body to B’s (or the state’s) commands is clearly NOT a violation of B’s rights.  On the other hand, if you believe that B (or the state) has property rights in A’s mind, then it follows that not only may they threaten A with jail time, but also B (or the state) would be morally entitled to use torture to extract their property from A’s mind, as A would have no right to withhold it.

Once again you try to switch to a different argument or subject. You denied quoting Miss Rand out of context. I showed how her quotation MUST have been out of context. Are you going to admit that or not? Does one have an obligation, chosen or not, not to violate the rights of others?

Now, you want to switch to the issue of who "owns" what and how compelling testimony means it would be okay to use torture, which is another ridiculous non-sequitur and another example of your continued use of the fallacy of the false alternative: namely, the notion that if we allow the state to use any form of force then we must allow it to use all forms of force.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

Since B’s property rights do not include the content of A’s mind, A violates no one’s rights by refusing to speak.

A does not have the right to help the criminals by withholding what he knows. Therefore, he cannot invoke a right to remain silent.

Why won't you answer the question directly so we can be done with this discussion? Do you or do you not think a person has a right to assist in the violation of rights? If one has such a right, then one may withhold evidence. If one does not have such a right, one may not withhold evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey everyone; I would like to ask two related questions off the topic of subpoenas and back onto the topic of anarchism in general.

Note: I am below using the term "government" in the same way that some anarchists might use the term "defense agency."

1. It is clear that there are certain governments which have the right to exist and that there are certain governments which do not have the right to exist. For example, a government which (in general) protects individual rights, such as the United States, has the right to exist, while a government which oppresses its citizens, such as that which was formerly present in Iraq, does not. A government which protects rights is morally justified in toppling a government which does not. However, as a hypothetical example, say that in a future Capitalist America a group of U.S. Citizens gets together and decides to form a *new* "government" within the borders of what used to be in the jurisdiction of the United States. Also say that this new government has a system of objective law which protects rights in the same way as the old government does. By what right could the old government attempt to bring down the new to ensure that there still existed a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force? Both governments, it seems, would be of equal moral standing, and for either of them to attack the other would be an initiation of force.

2. Say instead that a new "government" was formed that did not have the right to exist, a government which, for example, was based on the ideology of Nazism. The old United States government would certainly have a right to bring down this new organization... but remember that this is a fully Capitalist USA, which therefore has no coercive system of taxation. What if there was simply not enough funding to bring down the new fascist government? The alternatives would be either to institute temporary taxation (which in my opinion may be morally justified, depending on the level of the threat) or to let the new government take over more and more of the USA's "market share." My point here is essentially that a purely Capitalist minimal-state, which relies on a voluntary method of funding, necessarily leads in practice to anarcho-capitalism, as there is nothing which would stop citizens from giving their money to some other defense organization, whether or not that organization actually had a right to exist.

Note that I am not trying to promote anarchism as an "ideal" system (or lack thereof); I am simply trying to get some answers to questions which I feel have not been addressed sufficiently by the Objectivist community.

Here is an interesting article by author George H. Smith which some of you may or may not have read before. It goes into further detail on the points I have presented above:

http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~thomas/po/rational-anarchism.html

Thanks for any insights in this matter!

Edited by FluxCapacitor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA:

Without the power to collect testimony, conduct searches (with warrants) and gather evidence, justice cannot be dispensed and rights cannot be protected.

Robinson:

With similar fallacious reasoning, the state could declare that without the right to draft millions of men, rights cannot be protected.  Any theory that rights are protected by violating the lives or property of some for the benefit of others is self-contradictory and therefore logically invalid.

Now you are dropping context. You know perfectly well that I have not attempted to justify subpoena power on practical grounds -- I merely pointed out the obvious practical consequences of eliminating subpoena power.

Therefore, no one has advanced any theory that rights are protected by violating the rights of others. Since I have made it clear that I consider the key issue to be the question of whether or not one has the right to assist in the violation of rights, you can drop the preposterous straw man argument of accusing me of this position.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

My position against intimidating witnesses is consistent.  Anyone who threatens a witness with loss of life, property or liberty has committed a rights violation and should be subject to punishment.

Without the power to compel testimony or collect evidence, how on earth do you plan to prove that anyone has been threatened? Under your approach, the state cannot tap the suspect's phones to record phone calls (unless the suspect agrees) or sieze computer records to look for damning correspondence (unless the suspect agrees) or look at phone company logs to find evidence of contact (unless both the suspect and the phone company agree), so how will you prove that a threat has been made?

Now, if you follow your normal argumentative pattern, you will drop context here by ignoring the fact that my post is in response to what you say about witness intimidation being a crime. You will ignore the point that eliminating subpoena power and the power to collect evidence (virtually) eliminates the state's ability to prove anything. Instead, you will quote what I have written above and respond with something like, "Just because the state's task is difficult does not justify violating a witnesses' rights."

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

Unproven assertion.  A witness who refuses to speak may not have sided with the criminal at all but instead may be acting in his rational self-interest to avoid the violent repercussions of giving testimony.

There is no middle ground in this issue: one either cooperates with the police and helps the state -- or one helps the criminal.

Are you now modifying your position to the effect that one may withhold evidence only if one is threatened? That is not what you have maintained thus far.

AisA:

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

Robinson:

If it is one’s own child, then feeding it is not an unchosen obligation.

Do you have an obligation not to violate the rights of others, even if you do not chose that obligation?

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

Since the contents of an individual’s mind are his by right, no one may morally use force against him in order to gain access to those contents.  Ordering a citizen under threat of jail time to render services to the government is a violation of his rights, whether the violation is being done by a draft board or by a court of law.

Why? Because you say so?

Once again you seek to evade a distinction by dropping context and switching to a different argument.

In response to your claim that a subpoena is the equivalent of the military draft and that if one can be compelled to testify, then one can be compelled to fight, I have (again) pointed out the distinction between a witness and a random citizen and have again invoked the principle that physically fighting an invasion is the military's responsibility. You ignore this distinction, abandon one argument and switch to another.

AisA:

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.

Robinson:

As explained at length above, the state does not have the right to force anyone to speak.

So you assert a right to assist in the violation of rights. Fine. Why won't you just say so?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA:

Do you or do you not think that one has the right to assist in the violation of rights?

Robinson:

Define “assist.” And be careful here. For example, does a car owner who leaves the ignition key in the vehicle “assist” the car thief? Does a parent who does not do a background check on a baby-sitter “assist” in child molestation? Then answer the question, “Do you or do you not think that one has the right to assist in the invasion of a country?”

AisA:

The witness was present when the crime was committed and has evidence that can help the police identify the criminal;

Robinson:

One's possession of something that helps does not create an obligation to help. If that were the case, then the wealthy would have an obligation to donate funds to help law enforcement catch initiators of force. To make your case you will have to prove that the police or prosecutor have a property right to the information in the witness’s head as a result of the witness involuntarily seeing a crime.

AisA:

that makes the witness a party to the crime. None of this applies to a juror: he was not present when the crime was committed, he does not have evidence that can help the police identify the criminal, and he is a party to the administration of justice, not the crime itself.

Robinson:

You have not established that being an involuntary “party” to an event creates any obligation to perform an action. Prove by arguing from fundamental axioms that involuntarily witnessing an event creates some debt on the part of the witness to another person or government agency. Keep in mind that you will also have to prove or disprove the idea that a woman who refuses to testify against her rapist is a “party” to the crime and should be jailed if she chooses not to testify in the trial of the suspect.

AisA:

This is really the essence of the issue, and it shows how you attempt to evade the issue.

Robinson:

Once you post a valid (non-self-contradictory) case for violating a person’s rights on the grounds that he was a witness to a crime (an unchosen activity), then I will be able to acknowledge it. Since no such case has been presented in this thread, I can hardly be accused of evading it.

AisA:

I have already explained that it is the army and the police's responsibility to physically fight an invading army or criminals -- and that the private citizen's obligation in each case is only to provide any information or evidence that they may have.

Robinson:

Again, how does an unchosen, unvolunteered, uncontracted act by the citizen create an obligation to the state or another citizen? If your claim is valid, then rights are purely circumstantial, not inherent in man’s nature as Rand argues.

AisA:

But, ignoring that explanation, you simply repeat a (false) analogy without mentioning or addressing what I have said about that analogy.

Robinson:

Your response about the army and police was not an explanation but a datum that adds no strength to your case. Indeed, if it is the “army and the police's responsibility to physically fight an invading army or criminals,” then they should provide full protection to a citizen who is being threatened with loss of liberty for exercising his right not to speak. After all, you have already said in Post #46 (in response to the query “wouldn't the force used to get you to go to court have been an initiation of force?”): “Yes, it is an initiation of force.” Accordingly, the proper response to the initiation of force (coercing a witness) is retaliatory force (putting the coercer in jail).

AisA:

You completely ignore the obvious distinctions -- which I have now explained several times -- between a witness to a crime and a random citizen.

Robinson:

You have not shown why random citizens should have full rights to speak (or not to speak) but random witnesses to crimes should not. Once you prove that unchosen, unvolunteered or uncontracted actions by a citizen can create obligations from him to the state, then I will start taking your argument seriously.

AisA:

Since I know that you are intelligent enough to grasp those distinctions, I am left with only one explanation for your on-going refusal to acknowledge them.

Robinson:

Since, so far, no valid case has been made for depriving a person who has not initiated force of his rights, I cannot be accused of evading it.

AisA:

I have already answered this and you have ignored the answer: physically fighting the criminal is the responsibility of the police.

Robinson:

If fighting those who violate the rights of others is the responsibility of the police, then they should arrest any policeman or prosecutor who threatens with force anyone who himself did not initiate force, i.e. arrest the coercers of witnesses. (See your Post #46)

AisA:

Anyone who reads this thread will see otherwise.

Robinson:

In that case, please, please, please solicit their help. Perhaps they’ll provide a better argument than yours.

AisA:

For instance, one of your first posts on this topic was to make the claim that if we grant subpoena power, we must tolerate mass arrests, warrantless searches and suspension of trial-by-jury. You have offered such arguments repeatedly.

Robinson:

For this reason: just as a man on the street does not give up his rights not to be incarcerated by the fact that he happens, involuntarily, to be of the same race as the suspect, so a person does not give up his rights by the fact that he has, involuntarily, witnessed a crime.

AisA:

Evaded, yes. Refuted, no. When I explain repeatedly that physically fighting criminals is the responsibility of the police, and yet you continue to argue that compelling a witness to give testimony means the state can also compel him to physically intervene in crimes, then you are simply evading an argument, not answering it.

Robinson:

Your argument does not make sense. If "physically fighting criminals is the responsibility of the police," then the police should be the first to come to the aid (“assist”?) a witness who has been threatened with force for sticking to his right not to speak. Since you acknowledged in Post #46 that subpoenas are the initiation of force, then those charged with “physically fighting criminals” should physically fight coercers of witnesses.

AisA:

Man has an obligation not to violate the rights of others and, as a corollary, an obligation not to help those who do violate the rights of others. You haven't even mentioned this position, let alone refuted it!

Robinson:

If we have “an obligation not to help those who do violate the rights of others,” then we should withhold our cooperation with any government official or agency that violates the right of a person not to speak, for that clearly is his right.

AisA:

Once again you try to switch to a different argument or subject. You denied quoting Miss Rand out of context. I showed how her quotation MUST have been out of context. Are you going to admit that or not?

Robinson:

No switch. Miss Rand was clear on the matter: ““Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.” Now if you can show both that Rand supported the use of subpoenas and provided an argument for subpoenas that was consistent with “The Objectivist Ethics,” then I will cheerfully rescind my references to Rand’s ethics.

AisA:

Does one have an obligation, chosen or not, not to violate the rights of others?

Robinson:

Check your premises. There is no such thing as an unchosen obligation.

AisA:

Now, you want to switch to the issue of who "owns" what and how compelling testimony means it would be okay to use torture, which is another ridiculous non-sequitur and another example of your continued use of the fallacy of the false alternative: namely, the notion that if we allow the state to use any form of force then we must allow it to use all forms of force.

Robinson:

It is no switch, for any legal conflict between two individuals is ultimately a question of property rights. A murder or rape is a violation of the victim’s property right to her body. A theft of a car is a violation of a victim’s property right to the vehicle he purchased. Forcing a person to speak via subpoena is a violation of a person’s right to his body. Now since you have already acknowledged in Post #46 that subpoenas are the initiation of force, then it is now only a matter of how we wish to deal with that initiation of force. I say, an eye for an eye. If an official jails a witness for ten days for refusing to testify, then the minimum punishment for that offender should be ten days in jail.

AisA:

A does not have the right to help the criminals by withholding what he knows. Therefore, he cannot invoke a right to remain silent.

Robinson:

If A does not have the right to remain silent, then force used to compel his testimony would not be initiation of force. Thus, you contradict your statement in Post #46: “Yes, it is an initiation of force.” An argument that contains contradictory premises must have its contradictions reconciled or be declared invalid.

AisA:

Why won't you answer the question directly so we can be done with this discussion? Do you or do you not think a person has a right to assist in the violation of rights? If one has such a right, then one may withhold evidence. If one does not have such a right, one may not withhold evidence.

Robinson:

In a debate no one has an obligation to answer leading questions or questions with false premises. See my first response in this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry, that debate left above was probably the most rediculous argument I've ever read. Robinson has not skirted any issues. Also, after what may have been an hour of chatting, both of you managed to resolve nothing.

I think it is fairly obvious that a witness to a crime has no obligation to testify. Even if we could prove that in the philosophy of law, forcing testimony was justified. It could not be integrated into practice. How would one go about proving that a person was witness to a crime? How would you be able to prove that what that person witnessed was important to the case? How would you be able to prove that the witness, even if at the scene of the crime, paid attention to the surroundings, or remembered what happened? I think we can all see the flaws in a subpoena system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would one go about proving that a person was witness to a crime? How would you be able to prove that what that person witnessed was important to the case? How would you be able to prove that the witness, even if at the scene of the crime, paid attention to the surroundings, or remembered what happened? I think we can all see the flaws in a subpoena system.

Um, so, you're saying that proof of any kind is impossible?! You prove it the same way you prove anything else. If you can't prove it (or at least demonstrate that there is enough reason to request a subpeona) you can't get one.

The subpeona system has been functioning perfectly well in the U.S. for years. They are not that easy to get. They are often used in civil cases to get all the parties to show up with their evidence so that the dispute can be presided over by a judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. ... as a hypothetical example, say that in a future Capitalist America a group of U.S. Citizens gets together and decides to form a *new* "government" within the borders of what used to be in the jurisdiction of the United States.

First off, why would anyone DO that? Running a government is an IMMENSE expense and hassle etc. etc. If you've got one that protects your rights, why do you need to form a new, smaller one to do the same job? Redundancy?

I find this example bizarre.

2. . . . What if there was simply not enough funding to bring down the new fascist government?

Sell war bonds.

My point here is essentially that a purely Capitalist minimal-state, which relies on a voluntary method of funding, necessarily leads in practice to anarcho-capitalism, as there is nothing which would stop citizens from giving their money to some other defense organization, whether or not that organization actually had a right to exist.?

Um, yes there IS something to stop citizens from giving their money to another "retaliatory organization" (the government's purview is not defensive force but retaliatory force) that being that an organization which uses force against the citizens under a government is a CRIMINAL one. Hence, if you fund one, you're a criminal, you go to jail or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, why would anyone DO that?  Running a government is an IMMENSE expense and hassle etc. etc.  If you've got one that protects your rights, why do you need to form a new, smaller one to do the same job?  Redundancy?

If our current government is any indication, it is quite possible that a future Capitalist government could, for whatever reason, become highly inefficient. If another group comes along that can perform the same services for a smaller fee, many people would want to join up with this new organization.

Sell war bonds.
Good call. In most cases I think that would be sufficient.

Um, yes there IS something to stop citizens from giving their money to another "retaliatory organization" (the government's purview is not defensive force but retaliatory force) that being that an organization which uses force against the citizens under a government is a CRIMINAL one.  Hence, if you fund one, you're a criminal, you go to jail or whatever.

My point here was that when the element of taxation is removed and the government must rely on donations or user fees for its services, that government no longer has any special characteristics differentiating it from a private organization. If it cannot get enough voluntary support from its citizens, it will be powerless to put someone in jail who supports another defense/retaliatory organization. A person who gives money to a Nazist retaliatory organization is a criminal, I agree, but there simply may not be sufficient resources to actually hunt down and arrest that person.

My first point, however, I believe is far more important, as I see national borders, and the fact of a government having a certain natural jurisdiction, as having no rational basis. Perhaps my point will be more clear with a brief illustration. :)

There is a hypothetical nation called JohnGaltistan, which has a fully Capitalist government supported by voluntary donations and user fees. JohnGaltistan administers an objectively correct system of law, and defends the rights of its citizens to the best of its abliliy. One of the services that JohnGaltisan provides to its citizens is the enforcement of private contracts, provided that both parties pay a certain fee. This example is used by Ayn Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness:

As an illustration (and only as an illustration), consider the following possibility. One of the most vitally needed services, which only a government can render, is the protec­tion of contractual agreements among citizens. Suppose that the government were to protect—i.e., to recognize as legally valid and enforceable—only those contracts which had been insured by the payment, to the government, of a premium in the amount of a legally fixed percentage of the sums involved in the contractual transaction. Such an insurance would not be compulsory; there would be no legal penalty imposed on those who did not choose to take it—they would be free to make verbal agreements or to sign uninsured contracts, if they so wished. The only consequence would be that such agreements or contracts would not be legally enforceable; if they were broken, the injured party would not be able to seek redress in a court of law.

Let's say JohnGaltistan charges an insurance fee of 15% on the dollar-value of the transaction.

Now, say there is a neighboring nation called Roarkistan, which, like JohnGaltistan, is financed voluntarily and has an Objectivist system of law. However, the courts and police in Roarkistan are so efficient that they can afford to charge their citizens a low 8% insurance fee to cover the costs of contract enforcement. Some of the citizens of JohnGaltistan are understandably rather upset that they have to pay such a high rate compared to their neighbors across the border; why should they, just because of where they live, be denied the more efficient and less expensive services of the Roarkistani government?

The answer is there is no reason why they should be denied these services. The Roarkistani government fully recognizes individual rights, and therefore has just as much a right to enforce contracts as does JohnGaltistan. The same basic principle can be abstracted to apply to any other function of government.

Note that there is a distinction between the type of anarchism I describe above and the type of 'anarcho-capitalism' advocated by people such as David Friedman. The former retains an objective system of law, but the organizations which enforce this law compete on the market. In the latter, not only the enforcement organizations, but the type of law is up on the market, a situation which is far from ideal.

The second point that I was trying to make in my original post is that Objectivist minimal-statism, with enough time, will inevitably become the type of anarchism I described above, which in turn, with enough time, will inevitably turn into anarcho-capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, so, you're saying that proof of any kind is impossible?!  You prove it the same way you prove anything else.  If you can't prove it (or at least demonstrate that there is enough reason to request a subpeona) you can't get one.

The subpeona system has been functioning perfectly well in the U.S. for years.  They are not that easy to get.  They are often used in civil cases to get all the parties to show up with their evidence so that the dispute can be presided over by a judge.

I am saying that I could be at the scene of a crime, and when forced to testify. I get on the stand and say very little that actually helps your case. I could say I saw a man on a bike shoot a guy and leave. And when the prosecutor asks what he looks like, I could reply, I don't remember. And I could give that reply to several different questions, and there is really no way to prove what I remember and what I don't remember. Except for looking inside my brain. So, what was the point of FORCING me to go to court? If court appearings are voluntary, then only people with something to contribute will go. So not only would it be moral in practice, because the government would not have to initiate the use of force, but it would be more practical. And as we all know, the moral is the practical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If our current government is any indication, it is quite possible that a future Capitalist government could, for whatever reason, become highly inefficient.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. True laissez-faire capitalism has never existed anywhere, so on what basis can you make predictions regarding the probable fate of a country practicing it?

My point here was that when the element of taxation is removed and the government must rely on donations or user fees for its services, that government no longer has any special characteristics differentiating it from a private organization.

Any government will always have a huge, glaring, obvious distinction between itself and ANY private organization; the ability to use retaliatory force. Governments operate by force. Private organizations operate by voluntary consent. This boundary cannot be overlooked.

I'm going to dispense with your lengthy and unnecessary example with one question:

Texas has no state income tax. Why doesn't everyone in the U.S. live in Texas then?

There is a rational reason for why governments cover a certain territory; the need of human beings for property. Land (i.e. space to sit down, at the very least) is the fundamental type of property because EVERYONE has to sleep SOMEWHERE.

If you live in the middle of Indiana but your "government" is based in New Jersey, which is, btw, where it keeps all its troops, suppose some belligerent Canadians launch a surprise attack and conquer your house? It's a logistical nightmare to imagine that a government that governs no territory can successfully persecute military operations, or gather intelligence, or any matters of that sort.

I have this image in my mind of an army arguing about whether they're allowed to drive their tanks through territory owned by a member of another government in order to get to territory that's owned by a member of their government.

The second point that I was trying to make in my original post is that Objectivist minimal-statism, with enough time, will inevitably become the type of anarchism I described above, which in turn, with enough time, will inevitably turn into anarcho-capitalism.

Like heck it will. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. The problem is not "slipping into anarchy" but preventing encroachments of statism. Anarcho-capitalism is a laughably childish attempt at an "ideal" society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am saying that I could be at the scene of a crime, and when forced to testify. I get on the stand and say very little that actually helps your case. I could say I saw a man on a bike shoot a guy and leave. And when the prosecutor asks what he looks like, I could reply, I don't remember. And I could give that reply to several different questions, and there is really no way to prove what I remember and what I don't remember. Except for looking inside my brain. So, what was the point of FORCING me to go to court? If court appearings are voluntary, then only people with something to contribute will go. So not only would it be moral in practice, because the government would not have to initiate the use of force, but it would be more practical. And as we all know, the moral is the practical.

This example is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start.

Okay, let's start at the beginning. You witness a crime. Well, there's a corpse lying in the street.

You have two basic options: wait around for the cops, or leave.

If you leave, unless there was someone there that could point you out to the police, you'll never even be hassled by the cops, much less have to testify in court.

If you wait for the police, they will take a statement from you: "What happened?"

"I saw a guy on a bike shoot . . . um . . . that dead guy over there."

"Did you see what he looked like?"

"No."

"License plates?"

"No."

"Any distinguishing marks?"

"I told you, I didn't see anything."

"Fine, fine."

And, it becomes rather obvious that you don't know anything.

OR

"What happened?"

"I ain't tellin' you nothin' and you can't make me!"

"Um, there's a dead body over there. If you won't tell us what you saw we have to assume you're hiding something on behalf of the perpetrator."

"I ain't sayin' nothin'!"

"You do realize that if you refuse to assist us in our inquiries you're in violation of Section blah blah blah of the penal code?"

"I ain't sayin."

"Right. Johnson, book him."

So, you spend the night in jail, your lawyer makes a big stink, and you go home the next day because it's clear that you were just being a jerk and didn't actually know anything.

Honestly. Court appearances can't be left to be voluntary in ALL cases BECAUSE people that DO know things sometimes WON'T go and there's no other way to find out what's really going on and serve justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly.  Court appearances can't be left to be voluntary in ALL cases BECAUSE people that DO know things sometimes WON'T go and there's no other way to find out what's really going on and serve justice.

“A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent -- his right has been violated.” -- Ayn Rand, "Textbook of Americanism"

"Only individual men have the right to decide when or whether they wish to help others; society -- as an organized political system -- has no rights in the matter at all." -- Ayn Rand, "Collectivized Ethics"

“Is man a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and his products -- or is he the property of the tribe (the state, the society, the collective) . . . ?” -- Ayn Rand, "What Is Capitalism"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent -- his right has been violated.” -- Ayn Rand, "Textbook of Americanism"

"Only individual men have the right to decide when or whether they wish to help others; society -- as an organized political system -- has no rights in the matter at all."  -- Ayn Rand, "Collectivized Ethics"

“Is man a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and his products -- or is he the property of the tribe (the state, the society, the collective) . . . ?” -- Ayn Rand, "What Is Capitalism"

Yes, I agree. Not only are the ones advocating subpoenas just reaching for reason and proof, but they do not acknoledge that subpoenas violate Objectivist ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree. Not only are the ones advocating subpoenas just reaching for reason and proof, but they do not acknoledge that subpoenas violate Objectivist ethics.

Present an alternative. Not one person has presented an alternative to the subpeona system that exists. Not a SINGLE ONE.

The alternative must fulfill these requirements:

1. It enables a court system (the administrator of objective law) to function.

2. It prevents or minimizes abuses.

3. It does not leave the victim of a crime dependant on the "good will" of random passers-by.

It has occured to me that criminal proceedings are actually an example of an emergency "lifeboat" situation in many ways, also, and what is at stake is a fundamental breakdown of law and order: the collapse of civilization.

War is much the same way: in wartime, it is perfectly moral to destroy property and blast people into oblivion. Not to mention a million other "little" things; trade embargoes, closed borders, no-fly zones, identity checks, vehicle searches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a debate on this between me and Stephen Speicher on this issue here:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...=50entry63051

Thanks for the pointer, GC. Did you wind up changing your mind or just deciding not to argue any more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Present an alternative.  Not one person has presented an alternative to the subpeona system that exists.  Not a SINGLE ONE.

The alternative must fulfill these requirements:

1. It enables a court system (the administrator of objective law) to function.

2.  It prevents or minimizes abuses.

3.  It does not leave the victim of a crime dependant on the "good will" of random passers-by.

1. There is no reason why a court system cannot function without coercing peaceful citizens.

2. Since the subpoena is itself an abuse of individual rights, (2) is patently false.

3. Prove that coercion is preferable to good will.

It has occured to me that criminal proceedings are actually an example of an emergency "lifeboat" situation in many ways, also, and what is at stake is a fundamental breakdown of law and order: the collapse of civilization.

War is much the same way: in wartime, it is perfectly moral to destroy property and blast people into oblivion.  Not to mention a million other "little" things; trade embargoes, closed borders, no-fly zones, identity checks, vehicle searches.

And what about the involuntary servitude of military conscription, Jennifer? If destroying the lives and property of innocents is legitimate in time of war, how about a little slavery on behalf of the cause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. There is no reason why a court system cannot function without coercing peaceful citizens.

2. Since the subpoena is itself an abuse of individual rights, (2) is patently false.

3. Prove that coercion is preferable to good will.

What if a key witness in a criminal case just doesn't feel like testifying? Without his testimony, conviction is impossible. A criminal walks free just because somebody didn't want to spend a couple hours in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if a key witness in a criminal case just doesn't feel like testifying?  Without his testimony, conviction is impossible.  A criminal walks free just because somebody didn't want to spend a couple hours in court.

Yes. But how does one person's need constitute a claim on the involuntary servitude of another?

By comparison, we could say, what if the number of physically able youngsters interested in volunteering was insufficient to repel the invasion of Foreign Power X? Without the labor of those unwilling to fight, defeat of the invader would be impossible. A society would be conquered just because not enough physically qualified kids wanted to spend a couple of years on the battlefield.

Now explain the fundamental difference between the draft and the subpoena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy.  True laissez-faire capitalism has never existed anywhere, so on what basis can you make predictions regarding the probable fate of a country practicing it?

...

Any government will always have a huge, glaring, obvious distinction between itself and ANY private organization; the ability to use retaliatory force.  Governments operate by force.  Private organizations operate by voluntary consent.  This boundary cannot be overlooked.

When a government is reduced to being funded voluntarily, it is vulnerable to the same forces of competition that affect any other organization: it must have the lowest cost available for the services it provides or it will "go out of business."

If, as in my previous example, the citizens of a country feel that their government is not providing them satisfactory services for a fair and "competitive" price, they can simply withold from giving it any money, while instead choosing to fund an alternative agency. If the government tries to stop these citizens from funding such a "criminal organization" (an action which I believe violates their rights if the organization is one which recognizes objective law), it may succeed in the short-term, but since its ability to jail these people is directly proportional to the amount of voluntary funding it receives, the more people who grow discontent with the high prices they are forced to pay, the less the government's ability will be to arrest them. Once the level of discontentment begins to approach 50%, the government will find its ability to maintain a monopoly severely threatened, and its choices if it wants to survive are to either lower its prices or institute coercive taxation. Tell me, would you voluntarily give money to a government when you know that your neighbors across the border are able to get the same services for a much lower fee?

"Slippery Slope" is only a fallacy when it cannot be shown that the place you are "slipping" to follows logically from the place where you are at. I believe I have demonstrated that a lack of coercive taxation leaves a government susceptible to market forces of competition, leading to a de facto state of anarchy (here defined as a time when no one organization holds a secure monopoly on the use of force).

I'm going to dispense with your lengthy and unnecessary example with one question:

Texas has no state income tax.  Why doesn't everyone in the U.S. live in Texas then?

There is a rational reason for why governments cover a certain territory; the need of human beings for property.  Land (i.e. space to sit down, at the very least) is the fundamental type of property because EVERYONE has to sleep SOMEWHERE.

If you live in the middle of Indiana but your "government" is based in New Jersey, which is, btw, where it keeps all its troops, suppose some belligerent Canadians launch a surprise attack and conquer your house?  It's a logistical nightmare to imagine that a government that governs no territory can successfully persecute military operations, or gather intelligence, or any matters of that sort.

I didn't claim that it would be easy to administer such an organization; it very well may be a "logistical nightmare." That, however, does not mean that a government has any sort of moral right to cover a certain territory, nor that such a government has a right to quash any rights-respecting organizations who do pop up wishing to compete with it.

I'm not sure whether your question about Texas was rhetorical or not, but either way it is not relevant to my argument. If Texas decided to (somehow) provide protection to people outside its current borders, say if the Texan government flew helicopters around the country parachuting in police onto its customers' land, it would have just as much a right to do so as would the police of whatever State that land lies within the border of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about the involuntary servitude of military conscription, Jennifer?  If destroying the lives and property of innocents is legitimate in time of war, how about a little slavery on behalf of the cause?

Did I mention "innocents"? In any discussion I've ever had with you, you've REPEATEDLY proven you're incapable of recognizing essential differences between ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flux, it is PRECISELY that logistical nightmare that necessitates a government control a certain specified territory. Human activities are restricted and mandated by REALITY, not LOGIC. Logic is the process by which you validate your abstractions from real concretes, not the process by which you determine which concretes OUGHT to exist.

I despise over-use of examples; it demonstrates mental compartmentalization and an inability to reduce matters to fundamental principles. Your nattering about anarcho-capitalism and how non-coercive governments would "compete" reduces to these fundamentals:

Governments do NOT exist to maintain a MONOPOLY on the use of force. (A practice that requires specific means to accomplish).

Governments are inherently IRRATIONAL, ARIBITRARY organizations. (By the way, if, as you describe, "competing" governments have to fight to provide services at lower fees, what's to stop people from dispensing with government entirely and not having to pay ANY fees? Under your example, this would mean that governments would continue to shrink, constantly losing funds and "profitability". Eventually, individuals would realize that there is no law except what they make for themselves. This is not anarcho-capitalism as you have described it, it is ANARCHY.)

Thus you have stated that ANARCHY is the NATURAL result of INCREASED RATIONALITY.

And, since you've self-described that anarchy is NOT an "ideal", INCREASED RATIONALITY leads to LESS IDEAL circumstances.

I.e. INCREASED RATIONALITY IS BAD.

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...