Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
dream_weaver

What have George Floyd, Micheal Brown and Malice Green in common?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Regarding "retaliation" Ayn Rand wrote: "Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use" (Lexicon).  

So violence against a Minneapolis police officer who was not on the scene of the George Floyd incident would not qualify as "retaliation" in her view.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go to Ford to purchase a new car. I buy a car with all the latest features, but I get home and the car is missing some features. I go back to the Ford dealer and summoning my best Karen, I ask to speak to the manager. I bought the package with all these features, but my car doesn't have these features, I say.

Ah, but you bought the car from StrictlyLogical and Merjet. They were your salesmen. And they're not here. They're gone. Sorry, you're out of luck. And they won't be in tomorrow, or the next day. In fact, they're saying home and we're shielding them. And you can't get reimbursed from Ford because, see, you only have the right to get reimbursement from those who sold you the car. No such entity "Ford" sold you the car, see? SL and MJ sold you the car. And you will never see them again. Now begone!

If I were to do some cliche Randian analysis, beyond just peppering every other sentence with boilerplate jargon like "objective" this and "metaphysical" that, would probably conclude that this is the "concrete-bound" mentality. I would probably conclude that it is the refusal to abstract. And the reason for that is because organisations and institutions are groups of people, and these various people are representatives of the organization. And they know that, they're just being an insufferable pedantic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, human_murda said:

Are you suggesting that a police (C) arresting murderer (B) who killed victim (A) is an initiation of force? Clearly C was NOT there in the act of B against A, C was never attacked, and hence any use of force by C could not be retaliatory?

You don't need to be personally victimized to use retaliatory force, especially when the victim is dead and could not possibly retaliate. The problem here is that the retaliatory force was carried out by a mindless mob, not the fact that retaliatory force was carried out at all, on somebody else's behalf, which is perfectly valid.

Nope. Plenty of laws protect police who initiate the use of force. They're not acting independently of the police institution. (Of course, you could be arguing about some abstract, perfect police station that works this way, but this case is very specific).

The police acting in response to the initiation of force on behalf of the victim is legitimate because it is delegated retaliation, used in an objective manner, according to objective principles of law.  The government's proper role is to protect individual rights and insure those rights are protected according to objective rules, that is why a proper government has a monopoly on the use of force outside of emergency circumstances (where for example the police cannot arrive in time).

 

You raise an interesting point about whether a dead person can delegate the use of retaliatory force according to a government using objective standards.  I do not believe that it can be a fact that a dead person can have "rights" that need to be protected.  Personally, I tend to see apprehension of suspected murderers more along the lines with pre-emptory self-defense of the citizens at large, who are still alive, from an imminent threat.  This still however requires a reasonable standard of evidence prior to an arrest of that suspect.  There is a conceptual possibility that the right to retaliation was already delegated and remains with the government after the victim's passing.

 

Retaliatory force's legitimacy is rooted in the basis of all government action, the protection of individual rights, and keeping that use bound to objective standards.  Once a victim is dead, the rights at issue when any action is taken by government are everyone else's.  Prevention of re-offence by the particular person, and deterrence of similar actions by others are main reasons to pursue suspected murders.  The government's proper role does not include retribution or revenge on behalf of the departed, no matter how much they would have been emotionally satisfied by it, were they still alive.

 

You allege "plenty" of laws protect the police who initiate the use of force.  Whether or not this is true, to the extent those laws do so they are invalid.  Most laws in the tradition of western democracies, guard against the abuse of power by authorities and the police, just cause, innocent until proven guilty etc. 

 

I have never claimed the system was perfect, but the basic function of the police's core institutional function IS to fight crime, protect the citizens, and uphold the law rather than to perpetrate crimes, is clear.

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I’m sorry but if you can’t understand the issues after my explanation, you just don’t get it.

You didn't give an explanation to the parts that needed explaining. If you can't make it any simpler, you oversimplified it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

Not to agree or disagree more broadly about this particular act of mob violence, but you're looking at "retaliation" wrong here. The thing that makes for retaliation is not that it is the individual who has had force used against them, replying in kind.

If you look at the most widely agreed-upon uses of "retaliatory force" -- namely, law enforcement itself, I think this should be plain to see: When the judge sentences a murderer to jail, that judge was not necessarily there at the time of the attack; neither he, nor the arresting officer, nor the jailer, have been themselves attacked. Yet their use of force is retaliatory.

"Retaliatory force" is generally used to identify legitimate use of force in retaliation to the initiation of force.  This is to be distinguished from the broader concept of "force used in retaliation" which includes uses of force which are not legitimate, including vigilantism, and initiation of force masquerading as retaliation.

Legitimate use of "retaliatory force" of government power is proper because it is delegable, ab initio, the "right of retaliation" must first exist, and only in the victim, prior to its delegation to, law enforcement, judges etc. in a proper society.  In cases where the victim dies things shift a bit because the government's proper role is only to protect individual rights... and the dead cannot be protected... but since the acts took place while the victim was alive I suppose the right of retaliation has already been delegated... certainly considerations such as safety and deterrence are paramount.

 

I do not dispute that illegitimate use of force by anyone can be used in retaliation i.e. in answer to some action, but that alone does not make it "retaliatory force" in the legitimate use of the term when speaking of victims of the initiation of harm or a proper government acting on delegated authority.

 

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

I think it's arguable at the least that police training and culture have contributed to these sorts of outcomes; that there are "systemic" and "institutional" problems manifesting themselves, beyond the mere choices of one (or four) bad actors.

 This comes close to a straw man. 

In the context, "Retaliatory force" (properly) is legitimate because it is only in answer to the initiation of force, and is visited only upon those who initiated that harm and should be carried out according to objective standards.  By equivocating a little about whether the institution was at root to "blame" versus actually being the initiator of force, allows one to legitimize initiation of force against that institution under the cover of "retaliatory force".  If the "blame game" gets wide enough, all kinds of entities, which are the "root causes" will be "legimate" targets of violence because.. well it is after all "retaliatory force".

The institution did not initiate the force, individuals did so and outside of their proper authority.  Had the police rulebook or training said "keep your knee on the suspect's neck until they stop moving" then we would have a much better case for the argument that the institution itself IS in part the initiator of the force.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

I understand why people could look at a video like that and see it in that context, and come to consider the police "the enemy."

This is not a question of evading the causes of the behavior we are seeing, clearly this kind of thinking in people is truly happening.

I am not here to ponder why persons arrive at flawed conclusions, but to discuss how and why we can and should arrive at the correct ones.

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

I think it's arguable at the least that police training and culture have contributed to these sorts of outcomes; that there are "systemic" and "institutional" problems manifesting themselves, beyond the mere choices of one (or four) bad actors.

This is probably the more important thing to think about.

Whether or not burning down a police station in Minneapolis is retaliatory won't change the fact that such force wasn't proportional. What counts is that retaliation is even a question here. The behavior of law enforcement in recent history, in the past 50 years, suggest that there are problems with the very use of cops. Police have not always existed, it is not as if ancient Rome had police on patrol that would patrol neighborhoods. We certainly want law enforcement, yet abuse of power seems to be a constant issue for police. Perhaps it is related to being granted legal privilege to a huge host of tools of violence. That is bound to have psychological effects in a similar manner that affect people who work for authoritarian governments. Not that police in the US are part of an authoritarian government, but that being a police officer puts one under constant pressure of enforcing bad laws, and the fact that some laws incidentally protect police officers when they do wrong.

The entire institution of police is problematic. But it is still important to analyze what exactly people responding to. If people are retaliating, even if that specific method of retaliation is immoral, it's for a reason. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, 2046 said:

I go to Ford to purchase a new car. I buy a car with all the latest features, but I get home and the car is missing some features. I go back to the Ford dealer and summoning my best Karen, I ask to speak to the manager. I bought the package with all these features, but my car doesn't have these features, I say.

Ah, but you bought the car from StrictlyLogical and Merjet. They were your salesmen. And they're not here. They're gone. Sorry, you're out of luck. And they won't be in tomorrow, or the next day. In fact, they're saying home and we're shielding them. And you can't get reimbursed from Ford because, see, you only have the right to get reimbursement from those who sold you the car. No such entity "Ford" sold you the car, see? SL and MJ sold you the car. And you will never see them again. Now begone!

If I were to do some cliche Randian analysis, beyond just peppering every other sentence with boilerplate jargon like "objective" this and "metaphysical" that, would probably conclude that this is the "concrete-bound" mentality. I would probably conclude that it is the refusal to abstract. And the reason for that is because organisations and institutions are groups of people, and these various people are representatives of the organization. And they know that, they're just being an insufferable pedantic.

The sage philosopher, carefully ignoring the fact that organizations (groups of people) have rules which individuals are asked to follow in order to properly act on behalf of and for that group of people.  Carefully ignoring that when a person acts outside of those rules of the group he is not actually acting on behalf of or at the behest of that group of people, in fact, that person is acting to betray that group of people

Of course in the particular context of corporations and businesses, vicarious liability and other laws come into effect to protect wronged customers, and that is a nice straw man there.  It might fool some of your targets.  But that does not mean that under any rational scrutiny the "group of people" can be seen to have performed or initiated the acts (acts which they themselves have rules against) when the individual performed them.

The sage one has carefully used the straw man of corporate law and consumer protections to deflect from the fact that initiation of force is not a concept subject to whims or blameworthiness by proxy,

it has specific individuals as its victims and specific individuals as its perpetrators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to digress first: The situation cannot ONLY be described in terms of retaliation, as some of it is random and illegitimate simply blowing off steam. Some are people trying to find something to express their frustration with. Young men being bored, people being upset at losing their jobs and wondering about their future. Aggression will go up. So to prevent it, other pressures have to be alleviated too.

Having said that, back to the current thread:

If this violent activity is reduced to the premise that "this is only justified if it were retaliating against the officer who was on Floyds neck", then this is not retaliation.

But ... that would imply that retaliation is only justified against the necessary and sufficient cause (which can't be true).

Amount of legitimacy in retaliation is based on destroying a proximate cause (anything that supports the existence of (the harm/damage/effect)).

To defend yourself against a larger assailant you have a right to hit them where you can, not only the hand that contains the weapon. And yes, the closer to the necessary cause, the more legitimate the retaliation.

A proximate cause could be the "supporting police", or the employing police station, or the state that has the police force, or the nation or society that finances it.

Now, if these people went to Senegal/Africa and brunt their police cars, they had nothing to do with the Floyd Killing. That would be retaliation that was absolutely and objectively illegitimate (zero amount of Legitimacy).

What is going on in cities in the US has "some" legitimacy as retaliation. Therefore it "eventually" requires and deserves some sort of non violent alleviation. The areas where it had zero legitimacy it deserves aggressive retaliation by the government. 

Edited by Easy Truth
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

What is going on in cities in the US has "some" legitimacy as retaliation.

NOPE

None of those businesses or institutions victimized throughout the US contributed to the specific act(s) of harm against Mr. Floyd.  The initiation of harm was perpetrated by the officer(s) alone.  Nor is there any reasonable level of evidence showing that there is any truth to an assertion to the contrary that would rise to a level justifying use of ANY force against them.

Find a document showing some business funded "The Foundation for Angry Racists Who Want to Become Cops to Hurt Black People" and another showing these officer(s) were funded under that program, then maybe you could begin to argue there is some legitimacy for acting against that particular business, but in the absence of ANY evidence you cannot support ANY legitimacy for the acts of force we are seeing perpetrated.

 

Your attempt at guilt by association or inaction or whatever other anti-conceptual anti-causal notion you might be invoking... simply holds no water.

 

Guilt must be shown by objective evidence causally linking the specific person to the crime.  In the absence of ANY evidence linking anyone other than those officer(s)... ALL others are innocent.

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

The sage one has carefully used the straw man of corporate law and consumer protections to deflect from the fact that initiation of force is not a concept subject to whims or blameworthiness by proxy,

Just because the members of an organization or institution break the rules of that institution does not mean that the institution is free of all responsibility. An institution organization is responsible for the actions of its members, even when the members violate the rules of that organization. This isn't some strange and unique legal principle. 

For example, consider that an oil company would have rules against drinking on the job if you captained an oil tanker. Then imagine that someone really was drinking on the job, crashed into the shoreline, and spilled millions of gallons of oil into the water and all the property around it. The oil company would be liable. If everyone whose property was damaged sued the oil company, and won, you wouldn't then say that the trial was a sham, that only the drunken captain should pay damages for initiating force (causing property damage). Clearly, when under rational scrutiny, the "group of people" did not initiate the act, only the one individual performing the initiation of force. But the corporation is still responsible, no matter how many rules they have against drinking on the job and spilling oil!


Honestly, it's very strange that when people disagree with you (2046 in this case), I have often seen you insinuate that people have an ulterior motive, or you use passive aggression with backhanded compliments ("the sage philosopher"). The conversation will be more interesting if you stop doing that and show a little more respect. Or if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

A proximate cause could be the "supporting police", or the employing police station, or the state that has the police force, or the nation or society that finances it.

I think this is a good point. If justice matters, as it should, there needs to be justified retaliation. But in what ways are different police precincts responsible? Who should be retaliated against? Is it enough to simply charge one man with manslaughter or murder? It's certainly not a good idea to deny that responsibility extends beyond this one officer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

but in the absence of ANY evidence you cannot support ANY legitimacy for the acts of force we are seeing perpetrated.

This is at the core of the issue. If one sees NO evidence at all, i.e. no connection at all.

What you are describing is something with little legitimacy and perhaps there is a threshold. But saying there is NO connection, no, none, zero is not true.

Edited by Easy Truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

This is at the core of the issue. If one sees NO evidence at all, i.e. no connection at all.

What you are describing is something with little legitimacy and perhaps there is a threshold. But saying there is connection, no, none, zero is not true.

In the absence of any EVIDENCE there is NO legitimacy to use of force.

 

You could not justify attacking hundreds of businesses in tens of cities scattered thousands of miles apart even if you KNEW one of them DID contribute to the act (but did not know which one), but to try to justify an attack on hundreds of businesses in tens of cities scattered thousands of miles apart because you suspect that one of those businesses "might" have contributed, is laughable. Recall, you cannot get to "might" without "some" no matter how small, actual concrete evidence.

Mere armchair speculation and leftist spun conspiracy theories do not count for anything. 

Businesses do not collectively conspire to harm some poor person in another state, nor do they collectively conspire to initiate harm against anyone, no matter what the leftist Marxist academia or media might want you to believe.  Individual businesses and organizations do the best to pursue their own bottom line, or government mandate whatever the case may be. 

 

I am confident that 99% of the victims ARE innocent and that unjust initiation of harm is being visited upon their property, businesses, and their very livelihoods.  I hope you never have your business ransacked for nothing you were responsible for.

 

When enough people like you can justify witch hunts of the innocent and indiscriminate violence against them by the angry mob, the State itself will begin to appear to the public as justified in its witch hunts and indiscriminate violence through the general populace.  Equal justice for all...

BE careful of the Justice you advocate for lest you find yourself on the wrong side of some flawed system you helped create.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I hope you never have your business ransacked for nothing you were responsible for.

As if the government's response to Covid did not do that. As if printing money has not done that. As if gerrymandering has not done that. Which eutopia do you live in? I thought you did not believe in the supernatural.

There is no evidence of a business on the site of a riot has done anything wrong. And in  that sense they are innocent and there is no justification for them being harmed. Agreed in principle.

That applies to a "just society" where laws are equally applied, individual rights exist, not privileges for this or that group. In our mixed system some free market, some fascism, some socialism and a history of racism the "just society"  and its rules of conduct are not present.
                            
There is evidence of black people being stopped by police far more than white people. There is evidence of drug offenders mostly being black. There are far more black in jail than white. There is evidence that blacks die of covid at rates like in Italy. And now and again, video evidence of them being treated different by the law. 

The evidence is evident.

We as objectivists did not cause it, we are innocent. But we live here. Where the injustice exists.

Are any of us innocent when drug laws exist the way they do? Are any of us innocent when churches have their privileges? Are any of us innocent when we allow our taxation system to be the way that it is? Are we innocent when we allow some to have forced monopolies with tariffs or licencing laws? Are we completely innocent when we watch some lose their assets due to eminent domain laws? Not completely.

There is no justification to hurt innocent people, granted. The question is around innocence in this type of society. Am I innocent when we bomb children in Syria or Iraq etc? I had nothing to do it. But if I were there, they would have some (maybe miniscule 1/350000000) legitimacy to hurting me. But it is reasonable for me to expect that they could.

If it was a white person that was killed like Floyd, even with instigators, it is doubtful riots about "treatment of white people by police" would spread to other cities. If there was some rioting, it would be objectively illegitimate. 

"BE careful of the Justice you advocate for lest you find yourself on the wrong side of some flawed system you helped create."

EXACTLY, ignoring the connection is going to lead to bad consequences.

If leadership does not pay attention to grievances, real grievances, not fake ones' instigated by a few, it will experience social disturbance.

If we follow the logic of no evidence, no connection, then nothing must be addressed. 

We can look forward to perpetual curfews, lockdowns and yes riots too. After all there is no evidence of any legitimacy to the grievances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

"Retaliatory force" is generally used to identify legitimate use of force in retaliation to the initiation of force.  This is to be distinguished from the broader concept of "force used in retaliation" which includes uses of force which are not legitimate, including vigilantism, and initiation of force masquerading as retaliation.

Disagree here. "Retaliatory force" is not sensibly distinguished from "force used in retaliation." There may be legitimate and illegitimate uses of retaliatory force, but "force used in retaliation" is, as grammar would seem to have it, "retaliatory force."

And further, vigilantism may not be "legitimate" in the sense of legal, but it may yet be moral depending on context. Our sense of law and legal "legitimacy" comes from pre-legal/extra-legal understandings that retaliatory force may be morally proper, in a given situation.

"Initiation of force masquerading as retaliation," is not, on the other hand, retaliatory force, by definition.

2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Legitimate use of "retaliatory force" of government power is proper because it is delegable, ab initio, the "right of retaliation" must first exist, and only in the victim, prior to its delegation to, law enforcement, judges etc. in a proper society.  In cases where the victim dies things shift a bit because the government's proper role is only to protect individual rights... and the dead cannot be protected... but since the acts took place while the victim was alive I suppose the right of retaliation has already been delegated... certainly considerations such as safety and deterrence are paramount.

I disagree that "right of retaliation" exists only in the "victim." If someone attacks my wife or my child, I reserve full right of redress/retaliation. Delegation of that to some other authority, like government, is often a fine strategy to better effect justice. But in some given context (like in a place where government's reach is poor or nonexistent, or where government is corrupt), I may have to act myself in the name of justice -- on their behalf. Or on the behalf of my friend or neighbor. Or on the behalf of someone I've never met. Ultimately, I receive an attack on an innocent anywhere as an attack against myself, insofar as I am likewise innocent of the initiation of the use of force.

This is really where this "governmental power" comes from. There's no formal delegation or surrender of power, or of the "right of retaliation." But the idea of this "delegation" is a general acknowledgement that retaliatory force is proper, in certain situations, and need not be carried out by the victim (and may in fact be better served when not carried out by the victim). The use is "legitimated," thus, by virtue of being proper and correct -- by being a redress of wrongs against the guilty, in the name of the innocent. When the government acts improperly, it is illegitimate, and anything considered initially "delegated" may be taken back by the individual. I have no moral duty to surrender anything to government, or anyone else, if that does not actually serve my individual interests.

When a police officer is kneeling on your neck, killing you in fact, you have no moral obligation to allow it. If you witness an officer doing this to another, you have no moral obligation to permit it -- and perhaps quite the opposite.

2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

In the context, "Retaliatory force" (properly) is legitimate because it is only in answer to the initiation of force, and is visited only upon those who initiated that harm and should be carried out according to objective standards.  By equivocating a little about whether the institution was at root to "blame" versus actually being the initiator of force, allows one to legitimize initiation of force against that institution under the cover of "retaliatory force".  If the "blame game" gets wide enough, all kinds of entities, which are the "root causes" will be "legimate" targets of violence because.. well it is after all "retaliatory force".

Yet there are institutions, and we do recognize that they may be to blame for various crimes or actions -- do we not? This is how and why we recognize a street gang, or the mafia, for what it is, its criminal character, arising out of yet distinct from a particular accounting of the individual crimes of its members. And when we take down the mob, we take down the mob.

2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

The institution did not initiate the force, individuals did so and outside of their proper authority.  Had the police rulebook or training said "keep your knee on the suspect's neck until they stop moving" then we would have a much better case for the argument that the institution itself IS in part the initiator of the force.

It is clear to me that there is a failure at some point: in the present controversy (though how many others are there?), for instance, of the four officers present someone ought to have intervened; it should not be left to the civilians to tell the officers to relent, to let the man up as he's dying under their weight, and to be ignored. People are outraged rightly, because it is outrageous.

As to where that failure lies...? Perhaps it is in initial screening, perhaps in training, perhaps it accounts in part to the individual... or likely, actually, it is all of these things -- the problems we're facing are many and deep, and yes: the institution itself is in part the initiator of force.

I know that most Objectivists don't like speaking (or thinking?) in these terms, but I find it helpful to remember that US law initiates the use of force constantly and regularly against its own citizenry, and that the police are individuals who have signed up to assist in that effort. They commit themselves personally to using force against innocents on a routine basis; this is how they make their livelihoods. They have opted in, and they continue to make this choice, again and again. It should not be a surprise that there are "bad apples" among the bunch. Actually, it should be surprising to find someone moral in such a role -- and I have long believed that the truly moral would not be able to stomach such a thing for very long. The most committed to truth and justice, to fighting against the evil in society, would be the first to be sickened and enervated by the reality of his situation. I don't think he could last.

2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

This is not a question of evading the causes of the behavior we are seeing, clearly this kind of thinking in people is truly happening.

I am not here to ponder why persons arrive at flawed conclusions, but to discuss how and why we can and should arrive at the correct ones.

But you should ponder why persons arrive at their conclusions, at length and to the best of your ability: if you mean to do something, anything to benefit society, then understanding other people is essential.

In any event, the correct conclusion is, in part, that our policing needs to be overhauled. The culture of silence and mutual protectionism must be dismantled, and measures need to be installed to give greater civilian oversight and transparency. We should work to demilitarize (which includes a change in law and priority, too, like ending the "war on drugs") and de-escalate, so that the police can work with their communities again, instead of as an occupying force. We must commit ourselves to rooting out the remnants of racism and other cultural detritus, and upholding personal accountability so that no one may act with impunity (from the President down).

Until these sorts of fundamental changes are begun, we can expect these same essential results, again and again and again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

As if the government's response to Covid did not do that. As if printing money has not done that. As if gerrymandering has not done that. Which eutopia do you live in? I thought you did not believe in the supernatural.

There is no evidence of a business on the site of a riot has done anything wrong. And in  that sense they are innocent and there is no justification for them being harmed. Agreed in principle.

That applies to a "just society" where laws are equally applied, individual rights exist, not privileges for this or that group. In our mixed system some free market, some fascism, some socialism and a history of racism the "just society"  and its rules of conduct are not present.
                            
There is evidence of black people being stopped by police far more than white people. There is evidence of drug offenders mostly being black. There are far more black in jail than white. There is evidence that blacks die of covid at rates like in Italy. And now and again, video evidence of them being treated different by the law. 

The evidence is evident.

We as objectivists did not cause it, we are innocent. But we live here. Where the injustice exists.

Are any of us innocent when drug laws exist the way they do? Are any of us innocent when churches have their privileges? Are any of us innocent when we allow our taxation system to be the way that it is? Are we innocent when we allow some to have forced monopolies with tariffs or licencing laws? Are we completely innocent when we watch some lose their assets due to eminent domain laws? Not completely.

There is no justification to hurt innocent people, granted. The question is around innocence in this type of society. Am I innocent when we bomb children in Syria or Iraq etc? I had nothing to do it. But if I were there, they would have some (maybe miniscule 1/350000000) legitimacy to hurting me. But it is reasonable for me to expect that they could.

If it was a white person that was killed like Floyd, even with instigators, it is doubtful riots about "treatment of white people by police" would spread to other cities. If there was some rioting, it would be objectively illegitimate. 

"BE careful of the Justice you advocate for lest you find yourself on the wrong side of some flawed system you helped create."

EXACTLY, ignoring the connection is going to lead to bad consequences.

If leadership does not pay attention to grievances, real grievances, not fake ones' instigated by a few, it will experience social disturbance.

If we follow the logic of no evidence, no connection, then nothing must be addressed. 

We can look forward to perpetual curfews, lockdowns and yes riots too. After all there is no evidence of any legitimacy to the grievances.

I appreciate your thoughts on the issue are complex, and I agree issues of justice, race, government etc. involve complexity.

Does much have to change is society? Yes of course.  Foremost with equal treatment (no favors and no persecution) regardless of race, sex, gender, religion etc.

None of the complexities, however, changes morality, ethics, the politics of a proper society, and the objective principles of Justice.  None of those complexities legitimizes or justifies the use of force against those thousands of innocent victims of those mobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arising to yet more unexpected headlines on the matter as Paris, Amsterdam, Dublin, and New Zealand join this fray.

"Who do you turn to when you can't turn to the people that are meant to protect you?" said protestor Fionnuala O'Connell, reacting to the circumstances of Floyd's death in police custody.

Who will protect us from our protectors indeed.

10 hours ago, DonAthos said:

I know that most Objectivists don't like speaking (or thinking?) in these terms, but I find it helpful to remember that US law initiates the use of force constantly and regularly against its own citizenry, and that the police are individuals who have signed up to assist in that effort. They commit themselves personally to using force against innocents on a routine basis; this is how they make their livelihoods. They have opted in, and they continue to make this choice, again and again. It should not be a surprise that there are "bad apples" among the bunch. Actually, it should be surprising to find someone moral in such a role -- and I have long believed that the truly moral would not be able to stomach such a thing for very long. The most committed to truth and justice, to fighting against the evil in society, would be the first to be sickened and enervated by the reality of his situation. I don't think he could last.

This brings to mind the powerful portraying expressed in the movie A Few Good Men. In particular, the exchange where Dawson sumed up the verdict to a confused Downey.

The altruistic moral code accepted by most men shines here in another branch of service on the front line of the fight for America.

If the right philosophy cannot fill the vacuum, the question of who will protect us from our protectors may become uncannily prophetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

This brings to mind the powerful portraying expressed in the movie A Few Good Men. In particular, the exchange where Dawson sumed up the verdict to a confused Downey.

I was confused when I first read this. Then I found this: "Dawson and Downey are cleared of the murder charge, but found guilty of "conduct unbecoming" and ordered to be dishonorably discharged. Dawson accepts the verdict, but Downey does not understand what they did wrong. Dawson explains that they had failed to defend those too weak to fight for themselves, like Santiago" (link). Dawson and Downey were on trial for having killed Santiago. The verdict was that they did so unintentionally.

Excellent movie with the memorable words of Col. Jessep (Jack Nicholson): "You can't handle the truth."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, merjet said:

I was confused when I first read this.

Thanks for clarifying that up for me.

The coverage in Detroit provided by Mark Scott at the time on the Malice Green case explored in depth the aftermath for Officer's Budzyn and Nevers. Malice Green had underlying health issues that contributed to his death with his encounter with the officers that fateful night.

This, in particular, was the why the link to the coroner's advance notice reminded me of this and spawned this thread. The video referenced earlier in the thread is an excerpt of what took place, and came across initially as if the officer was taunting him to get up while his knee was in place, but the officers report mentioned George's initial objection to getting into the police vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Double Standard of the American Riot

Law enforcement has always required the ability to use force. Resistance to improper force is indeed justified. Discriminating just usage is equally important.

Did the Boston Tea Party appear reactionary or proactionary as it leaped into the headlines of the times? The argument packages elements together in a way that enrolls others, but boogieman in the background emerges in contrast to the longing for rights and freedom being denied 'somehow' to verdict concluded as selective information is 'tried' in the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argumentum ad historiam? This is not "resistance" to oppression, not proper self-defense, not proper protest; it's vengeance by the mob. Especially that innocent third parties are affected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dadmonson said:

Complain all you want... It Worked! This is why they march!  Their voice is what brings about change. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/03/3-more-cops-charged-in-george-floyd-death-other-officers-murder-charge-upgraded.html

What -- worked? Did you have the slightest doubt that the US justice system would prevail?

I didn't, not for a moment.

Therefore you're saying that any time anyone wants justice they need to go on a rampage, burn and pillage?

And I thought Objectivists opposed Initiation of force.

What "change"? The change you might get to see there you will not like, believe me. Civil unrest. General fear and anarchy. 

Not rule of law - rule of mob. Then along will comes a socialist state to save the day.

The "march", as you euphemistically put, it had a false causation. One individual's vile actions do not necessitate further acts, often vile too.

And the cop's act is not representative of daily life and all policemen in the USA (unless CNN has got hold of you), a false induction.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, dadmonson said:

Complain all you want... It Worked! This is why they march!  Their voice is what brings about change.

In the Malice Green incident, the news reports reminded the residents of Detroit  and surrounding communities of the riots of the 60's, and suggested if Nevers and Budzyn weren't held criminally culpable, blood in the streets would be inevitable.

In the Michael Brown incident, Darren Wilson was being charged at when he shot. By the time the coroner's report was released, the rioting had already commenced.

Riots and threat of riots is a heck of a game plan for constructively building a rational, individual rights-respecting society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

In the Malice Green incident, the news reports reminded the residents of Detroit  and surrounding communities of the riots of the 60's, and suggested if Nevers and Budzyn weren't held criminally culpable, blood in the streets would be inevitable.

In the Michael Brown incident, Darren Wilson was being charged at when he shot. By the time the coroner's report was released, the rioting had already commenced.

Riots and threat of riots is a heck of a game plan for constructively building a rational, individual rights-respecting society.

Mr. Kaepernik bravely decided to risk it all with a peaceful protest but he was ridiculed and loss his job.  

 

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

What -- worked? Did you have the slightest doubt that the US justice system would prevail?

I didn't, not for a moment.

Therefore you're saying that any time anyone wants justice they need to go on a rampage, burn and pillage?

And I thought Objectivists opposed Initiation of force.

What "change"? The change you might get to see there you will not like, believe me. Civil unrest. General fear and anarchy. 

Not rule of law - rule of mob. Then along will comes a socialist state to save the day.

The "march", as you euphemistically put, it had a false causation. One individual's vile actions do not necessitate further acts, often vile too.

And the cop's act is not representative of daily life and all policemen in the USA (unless CNN has got hold of you), a false induction.

Yes there was loss of property but what about the loss of George Floyd's life? What about the life that was loss before George Floyd? What about Trayvon Martin? what about Emmett Till? What about Sandra Bland? What about Michael Brown? What about Sandra bland? What about Martin Luther King? I can go on and on. Doesn't their life matter? 

Also, if policemen can have a "few bad apples" why can't protesters?  

 I had doubts about justice because an arrest wasn't made until the protests.  Police officers need to think twice before they use excessive force and a conviction will be a step in the right direction on that front.  

If this is what it takes for people to hear their cry then so be it.  

#MICDROP

Edited by dadmonson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...