When Does Someone Have The Right To Use Force?

[Captain Nate]

It's well understood that it's necessary for men to abandon the use of force in social relationship if they want to live in a civilized society. To do this, the initiation of force is made illegal and the right to use retaliatory force is delegated to the government to be pursued objectively under objective laws.

However, isn't it true that an individual may use force in self defense if someone is in the act of initiating force against them? In the books that I have and read so far, VoS, C:TUI & P:WNI, I could not find where or if it was explicitly stated, but Ayn Rand does draw a moral distinction between the robber who kills a store clerk, and the store clerk who kills a robber defending their property/life. If any of you can point me to the proper reading, I'd appreciate it.

How far does that right to use retaliatory force extend, meaning, at what point does the right for an individual to use force end and it becomes necessary to turn the job over to the government?

Just as any free nation has a right to invade an outlaw nation, does a lawful individual have the right to use force to stop a crime?

If a government fails to protect its citizenry (either unwilling or unable), what options do citizens have to defend themselves?

[BurgessLau]

Just as any free nation has a right to invade an outlaw nation, does a lawful individual have the right to use force to stop a crime?

Are you speaking of moral rights or legal rights? Morally, you have the right to use whatever force you need to use to stop a crime actually in process until the police arrive.

The legal situation, however, may vary from location to location. Be very cautious about using force -- especially if it is "only" to protect property -- that might cripple or kill the criminal. You might end up being prosecuted. For example, where I live, killing someone who is breaking into your car is a crime. If the criminal attacks you, then you have a legal right to defend yourself, but sometimes laws specify how much force you can use. That is a legal issue, and a lawyer could advise you on that.

[Captain Nate]

Are you speaking of moral rights or legal rights? Morally, you have the right to use whatever force you need to use to stop a crime actually in process until the police arrive.

Yes, I'm speaking morally. Ideally, all laws would be moral.

The legal situation, however, may vary from location to location. Be very cautious about using force -- especially if it is "only" to protect property -- that might cripple or kill the criminal. You might end up being prosecuted. For example, where I live, killing someone who is breaking into your car is a crime. If the criminal attacks you, then you have a legal right to defend yourself, but sometimes laws specify how much force you can use. That is a legal issue, and a lawyer could advise you on that.

Yes, I know.

Edited June 15, 2005 by Captain Nate

[JMeganSnow]

In other threads I have draw a distinction between the use of force in self-defense and the use of force in retaliation. The government has a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, as it should, but you still have a right to emergency self-defense.

Defending your property is and should not be legal unless you are also defending yourself in the process. So, if you catch someone breaking into your car, that's different from someone jumping into your car at an intersection and trying to force you out of it at gunpoint. The real, important distinguishing factor is whether you're preventing loss of life in addition to possible loss/damage to property. Why? Because property can be replaced, life cannot.

[Captain Nate]

In other threads I have draw a distinction between the use of force in self-defense and the use of force in retaliation. The government has a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, as it should, but you still have a right to emergency self-defense

I don't believe such a distinction exist. Using force in self defense is retaliatory in nature. You don't need to defend yourself unless you are under threat from someone else initiating force upon you first.

Defending your property is and should not be legal unless you are also defending yourself in the process. 

If a burglar enters your home to steal from you, I think it is proper to use force to stop him. He has initiated the use of force (the act of stealing and breaking & entering) on an innocent person.

So, if you catch someone breaking into your car, that's different from someone jumping into your car at an intersection and trying to force you out of it at gunpoint.  The real, important distinguishing factor is whether you're preventing loss of life in addition to possible loss/damage to property.  Why?  Because property can be replaced, life cannot.

But what is property by the tangible efforts of your life? Someone violating your property equally shares no respect for your life, and to defend your property is defending your life.

[Hal]

I don't believe such a distinction exist. Using force in self defense is retaliatory in nature. You don't need to defend yourself unless you are under threat from someone else initiating force upon you first.

Theres a difference between a) hitting a mugger while he is in the process of mugging you in order to protect yourself, and waiting till the next day, finding out his address, tracking him down and beating him with an iron bar. The former case is self-defence, the latter is retalitory. Edited June 15, 2005 by Hal

[DPW]

In other threads I have draw a distinction between the use of force in self-defense and the use of force in retaliation.  The government has a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, as it should, but you still have a right to emergency self-defense.

That's right. Retaliation (as distinct from immediate self-defense) is the application of justice to criminal matters and requires objective legal standards to ensure the protection of the rights of the innocent. Self-defense falls within the scope of emergency situations, with everything that implies.

Defending your property is and should not be legal unless you are also defending yourself in the process.  So, if you catch someone breaking into your car, that's different from someone jumping into your car at an intersection and trying to force you out of it at gunpoint.  The real, important distinguishing factor is whether you're preventing loss of life in addition to possible loss/damage to property.  Why?  Because property can be replaced, life cannot.

This is a bad argument. It implies that self-defense means merely the sustenance of one's life. If that were the case, one would have no legal right to defend one's loved ones if they were being attacked. Hell, it implies that one may not properly defend oneself in any case where one's life isn't threatened. After all, broken bones heal, do they not?

Don Watkins

Edited June 15, 2005 by DPW

[Captain Nate]

Theres a difference between a) hitting a mugger while he is in the process of mugging you in order to protect yourself, and waiting till the next day, finding out his address, tracking him down and beating him with an iron bar. The former case is self-defence, the latter is retalitory.

I don't disagree there is a distinction between those two events, but the distinction isn't one is retaliatory, the other is self-defense. They're BOTH retaliatory, but one is not proper because the use of force had ceased and it is up to the proper authorities to objectively punish the perpetrators.

My other question was though, what if the authorities are unable or unwilling to act? Is it moral for some degree of vigilanteeism? Or is there another option (replacing the government?)

[softwareNerd]

... what if the authorities are unable or unwilling to act? Is it moral for some degree of vigilanteeism? Or is there another option (replacing the government?)

What context are you supposing in this question: a situation where government is ineffective or immoral in specific areas and instances? Or, a situation where the rule of law has collapsed?

[Captain Nate]

What context are you supposing in this question: a situation where government is ineffective or immoral in specific areas and instances? Or, a situation where the rule of law has collapsed?

Mostly the former. In the latter, I'm sure that if the rule of law has collapsed, a person has no entity (government) to delegate the right to retaliatory force to and can exercise it according to their own judgement.

[JMeganSnow]

This is a bad argument.  It implies that self-defense means merely the sustenance of one's life.  If that were the case, one would have no legal right to defend one's loved ones if they were being attacked.  Hell, it implies that one may not properly defend oneself in any case where one's life isn't threatened. After all, broken bones heal, do they not?

I said life general, not just YOUR life, and since it's impossible to know whether an attacker (or home invader or someone even THREATENING you with violence) just means to break a few bones or kill you, you're fully justified in using whatever force is available to you. The distinction is, as I said, between, say, walking out into a parking lot and seeing someone three rows away breaking into your car . . . then you need to go back inside and call the police, not charge the guy in a fit of rage . . . and my example of someone trying to hijack your car at gunpoint while you're in it. It's a subtle difference, but it is a difference.

Edited to fix transposed word.

Edited June 15, 2005 by JMeganSnow

[JMeganSnow]

My other question was though, what if the authorities are unable or unwilling to act? Is it moral for some degree of vigilanteeism? Or is there another option (replacing the government?)

What, precisely, is the difference between vigilanteeism and replacing the government?

If you mean that vigilanteeism is taking into your own hands only some small, specific instances of retaliation, then vigilanteeism is immoral PERIOD; you are depending on the thing you attempt to negate (the existing government) in order to provide a framework for your occasional fits of non-objective retaliation.

As Miss Rand said, (paraphrase) for a civil society to exist, exercising force must be removed from the province of ANYONE's whim, INCLUDING your own.

[DPW]

I said life general, not just YOUR life, and since it's impossible to know whether an attacker (or home invader or someone even THREATENING you with violence) just means to break a few bones or kill you, you're fully justified in using whatever force is available to you. 

So you're saying that if we COULD know for certain that an attacker was just going to rough us up, we would have to let him?

The distinction is, as I said, between, say, walking out into a parking lot and seeing someone three rows away breaking into your car . . . then you need to go back inside and call the police, not charge the guy in a fit of rage . . . and my example of someone trying to hijack your at gunpoint car while you're in it. It's a subtle difference, but it is a difference.

Everything is a difference. The issue is whether the difference in question makes a difference. It's up to you to demonstrate that this particular difference does.

Your claim, it seems, is that self-defense refers only to the defense against death, not against one's body, property, or other values, and that therefore we should not resist a criminal in cases where we do not perceive our life to be in danger. That is a strikingly bizzare claim and I hope that you will provide some basis for making it.

By the way, I showed my girlfriend your previous point. I think her response was insightful, especially in the way she noted that there is no dichotomy between defending your life and defending your property:

As far as self-defense - the argument you presented [JMeganSnow's argument] is legally correct.  However, I tend to disagree, as a matter of both principle and the incentives that that system creates.  I also disagree with the statement "property can be replaced; life cannot."  Let's say someone steals my car and totals it and we'll presume that I drive a $50,000 car.  Sure, I can buy a new car ... but my car is gone and the time (year or so of my life) that I worked to buy that car is also gone.  I can work for another year and buy a new one, and then that year is also gone.  I might as well have taken a year long vacation, because my net outcome after a year is no better than I was previously! 

Don Watkins

[studentofobjectivism]

Another question: Is it amoral to kill someone who initiated the use of force against you but had no intent to kill you? Example: You are in a fist fight and you pull out a glock and kill the guy initiating force against you. Would this be amoral?

[JMeganSnow]

Since it is IMPOSSIBLE to know whether an attacker only intends to "rough you up" I fail to see how your point has any validity whatsoever. Non sequitur. It does not follow.

The reason it makes a difference is because this entire discussion ASSUMES the existence of a police force, a court system, etc. If you spot someone breaking into your car and they are very clearly no immediate threat to you i.e. they haven't SEEN you and don't know that this is your car, you have NO JUSTIFICATION for attacking them in an attempt to defend your property. IF they successfully get away with your car (by no means a given if you report them) and IF they total it you are entitled to recompense through the COURT SYSTEM but you have to WAIT. Why? Because even though it might be an inconvenience to you to be without your car for some time it is in your best interests to live in a civil society where people seek recourse to the proper authorities to deal with crimes. It's certainly not in your best interests to possibly get beat up by an unknown thief.

I am not saying it's immoral for you to defend your property sui generis, I'm saying it's immoral for you to defend specific, concrete pieces of property when there are other, more important considerations that must take precedence. I.e. I'm saying that you must act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, which, to a rational person would mean: 1st: preserve your life, 2nd: preserve the principles that make property and life possible, namely the principle of a civil society, and 3rd: defend your specific, concrete items of property.

[JMeganSnow]

Another question: Is it amoral to kill someone who initiated the use of force against you but had no intent to kill you? Example: You are in a fist fight and you pull out a glock and kill the guy initiating force against you. Would this be amoral?

You can kill someone with just your fists. If he's drunk and yelling "I'm going to kill you!" by all means, shoot him. Well, if you can't get away. Maybe he's got buddies.

In questions of application you have to consider the full context of the situation; this is why there will always be a need for judges to decide these questions. No one could possibly hope to legislate or predict every possible situation and outcome. So, instead, the law has to be applied by a human being wielding broad principles with objective definitions.

The principle here is, "self-defense should be both legal (and moral), but self-defense is strictly delimited to what is immediately necessary to prevent loss of irreplaceable values." So, you wind up with questions like, "was it REALLY necessary for you to shoot him seven times IN THE BACK as he was RUNNING AWAY to prevent him from hurting you?"

Someone initiating physical force of some kind against you is not a blank check for you to do whatever you want to THEM. This is why we don't execute people for pickpocketing.

[studentofobjectivism]

Since it is IMPOSSIBLE to know whether an attacker only intends to "rough you up" I fail to see how your point has any validity whatsoever.  Non sequitur.  It does not follow.

So then I can assume that if a person punches you a couple of times then you have a moral right to kill the person since it is "impossible" to know if he intended to kill you?

[softwareNerd]

So then I can assume that if a person punches you a couple of times then you have a moral right to kill the person since it is "impossible" to know if he intended to kill you?

Who's punching? Where? Is it Tyson, with full force, punching your head?

In your example, was the person trying to seriously harm you and was killing him the only practical way to defend yourself?

Since you ask about the morality, the person being attacked is the one who has to answer that question to himself.

If you ask for legality, the courts will answer that question of fact.

[DPW]

Since it is IMPOSSIBLE to know whether an attacker only intends to "rough you up" I fail to see how your point has any validity whatsoever.  Non sequitur.  It does not follow.

I don't believe that it's impossible to know in every case, but even granting that it is, I'm trying to identify the principle whereby it is wrong to defend yourself when you are not at risk for death.

As for my point not following, I have not made a point. I asked a question which you are refusing to answer. I will try again: if you knew that a thug only intended to rough you up, would you have an obligation to allow him to do so? If I understand you, the answer would have to be "yes" since you claim that the standard for when it is proper to engage in self-defense is when you believe you are at risk of being killed. If that is NOT your standard, then please correct me.

The reason it makes a difference is because this entire discussion ASSUMES the existence of a police force, a court system, etc.  If you spot someone breaking into your car and they are very clearly no immediate threat to you i.e. they haven't SEEN you and don't know that this is your car, you have NO JUSTIFICATION for attacking them in an attempt to defend your property.

Yes I do. My car is MINE and just as I don't have to hand it over to someone who asks for it, so I don't have to hand it over to someone who demands it or tries to take it. Now, whether or not it is prudent for me to refuse to do so depends on the circumstances, but it is outrageous for you to claim that a man who tries to stop a theif from stealing his car lacks justification, or what's more, is acting immorally.

It is not as if his alternatives are, "Keep your car, or "let the police get it back for you." More likely it is, "Keep your car or lose your car." Even if that were the case, I still don't believe you would have an argument. After all, whose rights would he be violating? Surely not the criminal's!

IF they successfully get away with your car (by no means a given if you report them) and IF they total it you are entitled to recompense through the COURT SYSTEM but you have to WAIT.

Right, which is exactly why you SHOULDN'T let them get away with your car in the first place, if you can take reasonable action to do so.

Why?  Because even though it might be an inconvenience to you to be without your car for some time it is in your best interests to live in a civil society where people seek recourse to the proper authorities to deal with crimes.  It's certainly not in your best interests to possibly get beat up by an unknown thief.

But this argument works only if you assume that my action is not one of self-defense, but that is precisely what you need to prove. I maintain that it IS an act of self-defense because self-defense refers not merely to "not dying" but to the protection of your life and your property.

Certainly, if you try to keep your car and the thug gets away, you do not have the right to track him down, take it back, and invoke justice. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about you claiming that one has no right to stop him in the act.

As for getting beat up by a thief...you forget, if I lived in a free country I might very well carry a gun. More broadly, whether or not a person chooses to assume the risks involved in defending his property is properly left to his judgment. My point is not that it is always, or even often, wise: only that it is his right.

I am not saying it's immoral for you to defend your property sui generis, I'm saying it's immoral for you to defend specific, concrete pieces of property when there are other, more important considerations that must take precedence.  I.e. I'm saying that you must act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, which, to a rational person would mean: 1st: preserve your life, 2nd: preserve the principles that make property and life possible, namely the principle of a civil society, and 3rd: defend your specific, concrete items of property.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I do not recognize a distinction between defending my property and defending my life. Only if you take "life" to mean "not dead" does this even begin to make sense, but of course that is NOT the Objectivist definition.

Furthermore, you seem to want to imply that defending one's property violates the desire to "preserve the principles that make property and life possible, namely the principle of a civil society," but as I pointed out before, that is only so if one first concedes that protection of one's property does not come under the umbrella of "emergency self-defense." I do not concede that.

Don Watkins

[RationalBiker]

Since it is IMPOSSIBLE to know whether an attacker only intends to "rough you up" I fail to see how your point has any validity whatsoever.  Non sequitur.  It does not follow.

Having been in many physical altercations, or fights, I think it can be quite easily known whether a person intends to kill you or not.

[JMeganSnow]

IAs for getting beat up by a thief...you forget, if I lived in a free country I might very well carry a gun.  More broadly, whether or not a person chooses to assume the risks involved in defending his property is properly left to his judgment.  My point is not that it is always, or even often, wise: only that it is his right. 

This reminds me of the total war vs. just war ongoing debate. Sure, you have a RIGHT to defend your property. IF such defense doesn't violate OTHER people's rights. Criminals have rights too (to an extent . . . the more they are in violation of rights the more they forfeit their own), as well as anyone else that might be in the vicinity and be shot by your over-zealous self. Under the law, you are not responsible for the principles guiding your actions but for their results, intended or unintended, good or bad.

I.e. the issue comes down to, later, at the trial, that you had a right to defend your property . . . until you fired an automatic weapon in a public place and injured half-a-dozen bystanders. In order to maintain your rights, you have to exercise prudence in judgement in your use of them; that's what you have to be aware of before you run off half-cocked, and those considerations DO come before your right.

[DPW]

This reminds me of the total war vs. just war ongoing debate.  Sure, you have a RIGHT to defend your property.  IF such defense doesn't violate OTHER people's rights.  Criminals have rights too (to an extent . . . the more they are in violation of rights the more they forfeit their own), as well as anyone else that might be in the vicinity and be shot by your over-zealous self.  Under the law, you are not responsible for the principles guiding your actions but for their results, intended or unintended, good or bad.

This is disasterous. A criminal has no rights. By what logic does an individual have rights if he does not recognize MY rights? There are no piecemeal rights -- you either recognize them as a principle or you don't. A criminal doesn't.

As to that last line, the results of me defending my life, liberty, or property are on the hands of the criminal who put me in that situation. Any harm done to innocents, assuming it was an unfortunate consequence of my attempt to defend myself, is on HIS hands.

I.e. the issue comes down to, later, at the trial, that you had a right to defend your property . . . until you fired an automatic weapon in a public place and injured half-a-dozen bystanders.  In order to maintain your rights, you have to exercise prudence in judgement in your use of them; that's what you have to be aware of before you run off half-cocked, and those considerations DO come before your right.

This is twisted with confusions. I will confine myself to this: this has nothing to do with what we are talking about, which is not the use of automatic weapons to defend oneself in a public forum, but with my right to defend my property. The fact that you chose to make this non-point while ignoring the bulk of my post tells me all I need to know about your method of functioning. This conversation is over.

Don Watkins

[softwareNerd]

Here (link) is a recent news-story that serves as an illustration of the discussion in this thread.

Briefly, the facts (as reported) are:

1) A man tries to rob a beauty school.

2) The folk there resist, beating him with sticks and curling irons!

3) He attempts to flee

4) They prevent him from doing so and continue beating him

5) The cops arrive. He is taken away on a stretcher.

Edited June 16, 2005 by softwareNerd