Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Split: On Anarchy

Rate this topic


AwakeAndFree

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1) No crime is being committed.

2) Even if a crime was being committed, you would only be obligated to report it, not to intervene.

Why would you have an obligation to report it but not to intervene? What is the source of obligation of one but not the other? I'm not sure I understand how you're distinguishing the two cases (non-reporting a crime vs. non-intervening), such that one should be criminal and the other shouldn't. Please elaborate and explain. Unless I've missed a post somewhere, it seems you just keep asserting with occasional righteous disgust.

One distinction that comes to mind is that in one class of cases (non-reporting/non-intervening) you are acting in the world of private citizens only, while in the other (subpeona situation) you are now involved in the mechanisms of justice; mechanisms required for the operation of a (criminal or civil) justice system.

Edited by Gabriel_S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you have an obligation to report it but not to intervene? What is the source of obligation of one but not the other? I'm not sure I understand how you're distinguishing the two cases (non-reporting a crime vs. non-intervening), such that one should be criminal and the other shouldn't. Please elaborate and explain. Unless I've missed a post somewhere, it seems you just keep asserting with occasional righteous disgust.

The government holds the monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. Thus when someone is having their rights violated, it is the duty of the government to intervene, not private citizens. Your obligation as a private citizen is only to report the crime (and possibly give testimony in the court of law), so the government can perform said duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm saying that you are armchair philosophizing.

Which means what specifically? Are arguments made by “armchair philosophers” necessarily invalid?

And given your non-response (and the numerous blatant errors you've made in your posts on this subject so far), I think I'm right.

Unproven assertion.

In fact, you didn't address the concretes that I raised in the quoted post. You've avoided the issue by taking the easy way out.

Because I answered your point in previous posts to other contributors. Your argument is essentially the claim that the criminal justice system needs subpoena power. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, one person’s needs do not constitute a legitimate claim on another’s liberty or property.

A prerequisite to discussing a specialized field of knowledge, especially the law, is that you have the background to do so: i.e., a firm grasp of the necessary concepts and their interrelations, and a thorough exposure to the concretes of the field (in other words been to law school). It's my guess that you don't have either of these, but still you speculate. Fortunately for those who disagree with you but likewise do not have the background to definitively make their claims, well, at least they are actually supporting the correct position.

This discussion is not about interpreting the present legal code but rather about the morality of one particular aspect of it, the subpoena. In this thread, I have not made any declarations about the existing body of laws, statutes, bills, ordinances, orders, etc, other than what has not been disputed: that the subpoena is a writ requiring appearance in court to give testimony. And even if I were offering a legal opinion, any statement I made would have to be judged on its own merits, not on my credentials or non-credentials as a legal scholar. If a person’s background in a subject were the ruling determinant of the truth of any of his statements about it, then we would not have to bother reading a person’s argument -- we would only have to look at the number of letters appended to his name.

It's really not worth my time to argue with you on the specifics of this anymore than I would recommend a biologist argue with a creationist. What you're doing is precisely what Dr. Peikoff has on a number of occasions explicitly avoided, which is to make pronouncements on the philosophy of law. He recognizes that he doesn't have the educational background required to do so without being rationalistic. If you haven't been to law school, at least for the first year, you really can't know what you're talking about. Ask any (rational) lawyer.

I am not making a pronouncement about the philosophy of law but about one portion of the law which is inconsistent with the non-initiation of force, the subpoena. By the way, taxes, which are also grounded in constitutional and statute law, represent another form of legal initiated force. Would you have any Objectivist without a law degree refrain from addressing the immoral nature of taxes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are arguments made by “armchair philosophers” necessarily invalid?

Uh, yeah. You see that's what it means to be an armchair philosopher; you are philosophizing on things that you really don't know much about.

Because I answered your point in previous posts to other contributors.  Your argument is essentially the claim that the criminal justice system needs subpoena power.  As I pointed out earlier in this thread, one person’s needs do not constitute a legitimate claim on another’s liberty or property.

First, it's not merely "one person's needs." The existence of the justice system as such necessitates this and other related powers. So, it really is everyone's "needs," if you want to use that term, that requires the existence of an objective legal system, which in turn depends upon the existence of mechanisms, such as the power of subpoena. A metaphysically given fact--that justice depends on the testimony of sometimes unwilling witnesses--sets the relevant context, i.e., the ethical/political must conform to this fact; not the other way around as you propose. The metaphysically given fact itself is beyond evaluation. We must recognize it and take it into account when we devise our political system. An ethical theory must likewise take this metaphysical fact into account as implicitly contained in the broader social context wherein ethical action takes place. Of course, if there were some "magical" means to get the same information without issuing the subpoena, then we wouldn't need to issue them. Needless to say, there isn't. Now, if you can come up with some other mechanism that would adequately substitute for the subpoena, then by all means let's here it. However, I don't expect that will be forthcoming.

By analogy, if it were proven that the only possible means of financing the government required a modicum of coercive taxation, then that would be a metaphysical fact to which social/political theorizing must conform. Now I don't think that is the case because there aren't any inherent metaphysical facts that would necessitate such an eventuality. However, if it were then that would be the unfortunate price we must pay for the existence of criminals. It would, in effect, be on their heads not ours. But still it would be required because the need of a stable government is beyond question. Incidentally, if that were the case, the proper procedure would be to ruthlessly delimit the scope of government to its bare minimum functions, so as to check its growth and appetite for increased tax revenue.

This discussion is not about interpreting the present legal code but rather about the morality of one particular aspect of it, the subpoena. In this thread, I have not made any declarations about the existing body of laws, statutes, bills, ordinances, orders, etc, other than what has not been disputed: that the subpoena is a writ requiring appearance in court to give testimony.  And even if I were offering a legal opinion, any statement I made would have to be judged on its own merits, not on my credentials or non-credentials as a legal scholar.  If a person’s background in a subject were the ruling determinant of the truth of any of his statements about it, then we would not have to bother reading a person’s argument -- we would only have to look at the number of letters appended to his name. 

A valid philosophic evaluation of the subpoena system, at a minimum, requires a knowledge of its nature (as found in case law and theoretical analysis) so that one can appreciate its necessity.

I don't think I've ever said that a person's background in a subject is the ruling determinant of the truth of his statements. However, fruitful discussion on highly specialized subjects requires such a background, otherwise we are dealing with armchair speculation not knowledge.

Edited by Gabriel_S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, yeah. You see that's what it means to be an armchair philosopher; you are philosophizing on things that you really don't know much about.

If any statement I’ve made is in error, then you need only demonstrate the error. The name-calling implicit in the term “armchair philosopher” proves nothing.

First, it's not merely "one person's needs." The existence of the justice system as such necessitates this and other related powers. So, it really is everyone's "needs," if you want to use that term, that requires the existence of an objective legal system, which in turn depends upon the existence of mechanisms, such as the power of subpoena.

Non-sequitur. If one person’s needs do not constitute a title to the liberty or property of another, how do the needs of two or more people constitute such a title? I hope you are not going to put forth some utilitarian argument that the needs of the many cancel out the rights of the few.

A metaphysically given fact--that justice depends on the testimony of sometimes unwilling witnesses--sets the relevant context, i.e., the ethical/political must conform to this fact; not the other way around as you propose. The metaphysically given fact itself is beyond evaluation. We must recognize it and take it into account when we devise our political system. An ethical theory must likewise take this metaphysical fact into account as implicitly contained in the broader social context wherein ethical action takes place.

A self-contradictory idea cannot be a “metaphysically given fact.” One cannot achieve justice through rights violations, since rights violations are plainly contrary to justice. Citizen A is entitled to have his rights violations redressed but not by initiating force against Citizen B. Rand: “Only individual men have the right to decide whether they wish to help others; society -- as an organized political system -- has no rights in the matter at all.” (“Collectivized Ethics”)

Similarly, if it were proven that the only possible means of financing the government required a modicum of coercive taxation, then that would be a metaphysical fact to which social/political theorizing must conform. Now I don't think that is the case because there aren't any inherent metaphysical facts that would necessitate such an eventuality. However, if it were then that would be the unfortunate price we must pay for the existence of criminals.

It is a contradiction to say that justice may be financed through injustice. If government acts as robber then it loses any claim to the role of defender of property rights.

It would, in effect, be on their heads not ours.

By the same process, you could suspend the Bill of Rights in order to fight crime, and blame the suspension on the “criminal element” -- which would of course ignore the fact that a government that is a mass rights violator is itself part of the criminal element.

But still it would be required because the need of a stable government is beyond question.

The protection of individual sovereignty is beyond question.

Incidentally, if that were the case, the proper procedure would be to ruthlessly delimit the scope of government to its bare minimum functions, so as to check its growth and appetite for increased tax revenue.

Such ruthless delimitations should include prohibitions on all involuntary servitude, including the subpoena.

A valid philosophic evaluation of the subpoena system, at a minimum, requires a knowledge of its nature (as found in case law and theoretical analysis) so that one can appreciate its necessity.

Please feel free to show what knowledge in your possession demonstrates that A’s loss of property or liberty justifies violating non-aggressor B’s right to his property and liberty.

I don't think I've ever said that a person's background in a subject is the ruling determinant of the truth of his statements.

In that case, a person’s legal background is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of any statement he makes on the subject of law.

However, fruitful discussion on highly specialized subjects requires such a background otherwise we are dealing with armchair speculation not knowledge.

You have not submitted any data gleaned from your background in law that falsifies my proposition that subpoenas are a violation of individual rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have not submitted any data gleaned from your background in law that falsifies my proposition that subpoenas are a violation of individual rights.

In fact you've once again missed the entire argument. There's no point in continuing a discussion with someone who willfully evades the argument presented. I can see why the other posters had the good sense to stop talking to you. Good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact you've once again missed the entire argument. There's no point in continuing a discussion with someone who willfully evades the argument presented. I can see why the other posters had the good sense to stop talking to you. Good day.

In fact, I did not miss your argument but answered each of your points and challenged you to show how the subpoena can serve justice when the practice is itself unjust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact you've once again missed the entire argument. There's no point in continuing a discussion with someone who willfully evades the argument presented. I can see why the other posters had the good sense to stop talking to you. Good day.

You did engage in several logical fallacies, such as ad hominem. I think you may be in the wrong in this one. One's credentials has nothing to do with the truth of his statements. I know several idiots with PhDs and many brilliant people with only their brains as credentials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did engage in several logical fallacies, such as ad hominem.

Hardly. But it wouldn't surprise me that you'd say that given your sympathies here with Tom Robinson.

One's credentials has nothing to do with the truth of his statements. I know several idiots with PhDs and many brilliant people with only their brains as credentials.

I agree and I've not said otherwise. I too know several idiots with advanced degrees, and extremely intelligent folks who never even went to college. Nonetheless, that wasn't quite what I was saying nor does it impact in the slightest the point I was making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
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.

Why is it that the alledged criminal who committed the crime then has more rights than those who merely witnessed it?

(I, of course, refer to the notion that an individual is not compelled to be a witness against himself).

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I'm curious about your response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sell war bonds.

Is it proper for a LFC government to go into debt and begin selling bonds? Doing so creates the impression that government is meant to be some sort of profitable enterprise that people can invest in and start getting money back. Once you do that, the government enters the economy as a participant, rather than a protector of the participants.

Secondly, what practical good are War Bonds if the power to tax does not exist? What guarentee would investors have in their lending that the government will earn that money back, except the belief that the government could take in excess of what it recieves using coercion. People might as well just give the government their wealth, because in the end they'll probably end up volunteering the money which they need to pay it back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that the alledged criminal who committed the crime then has more rights than those who merely witnessed it?

(I, of course, refer to the notion that an individual is not compelled to be a witness against himself).

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I'm curious about your response.

The accused and the witness have the same rights. Neither can be compelled to be a witness against themselves. Neither has the right to obstruct justice by withholding information about a crime committed by another party.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it proper for a LFC government to go into debt and begin selling bonds? Doing so creates the impression that government is meant to be some sort of profitable enterprise that people can invest in and start getting money back. Once you do that, the government enters the economy as a participant, rather than a protector of the participants.

Secondly, what practical good are War Bonds if the power to tax does not exist? What guarentee would investors have in their lending that the government will earn that money back, except the belief that the government could take in excess of what it recieves using coercion. People might as well just give the government their wealth, because in the end they'll probably end up volunteering the money which they need to pay it back.

1. The government HAS to be a participant in the economy, it just can't be the RULER of the economy. How is it going to pay for it's military supplies otherwise?

2. Not so . . . you're treating the citizens as a homogenous mass.

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...