Not Reporting A Crime

[softwareNerd]

Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute has written,...

This stretches Mr. Ghate's point in a very unfair way. I just want to make it clear to other readers that the quoted essay was about human sheilds and collateral damage, and not about people who do not report crimes.

In anticipation of a counter-objection, I'm aware that everything in philosophy can be related to everything else.

[Daedalus]

Why isn't the principle the same? In its wars against foreign aggressors, the government weighs the loss of innocent lives against exacting retribution from those who attack or pose a threat to us. On the domestic front, suspects or witnesses may be technically innocent of the initiation of force, but any inconvenience to them is simply part of the cost of removing thugs from our society. A law enforcement agency's failure to act against a criminal who hides behind a reluctant witness is just as bad as a military commander's refusal to attack an aggressor who hides behind human shields.

[softwareNerd]

...any inconvenience..

"any" gives the government a blank check. The devil is in the details.

For instance, you're speaking about witnesses at trial. That's very similar to the "person must raise an alarm" case, but it is not the same. My question to you would be: what factors must be in place for a fore-warned person to be legally liable for not raising an alarm?

Rather than giving similar examples, I think the topic is best served by using various examples that are more exactly on topic. Here are some:

* When the two shooters were killing people in Virginia a few years ago, I was just miles from one shooting site. A co-worker swore he saw a white van that had two shady looking guys in it. The van was acting strange. it seemed to be trying to make its way across Richmond by back-alleys, and the driver did not seem to know his way. He reported it to the FBI's hotline. What if he had not done so and it had actually been the right thing to do?

* Moussaoui, the so-called "19th hijacker". Does being an accessory add to one's responsibility to confess and disavow?

* What about Moussaoui's flight-instructor. He was suspicious. However, when he spoke to his boss, the boss seemed to take the attitude that it might be some guy with too much money and an odd desire to pretend he knows to fly. What if the instructor was just a little less suspicious and had not told the authorities? Would that be criminal?

* Suppose he was suspicious, had called three times but did not get through and did not want to leave a message; then gave up trying. Would he still be criminally responsible?

If one wishes to move from "people must report crimes and plots they are aware of", to actual objective law, one has to detail the objective conditions that would make someone criminal and those that would absolve them of criminality.

I'm not suggesting that the law be fully detailed in a thread like this. However, it is clear that "knowing and not telling" is far too vague

Edited to add: I'll grant that -- in principle -- the idea that witnesses may not speak, people may not be subpeonaed etc. under any circumstances is a libertarian one, that drops the context of living in society. However, it does not serve to say that the government may do anything to protect rights.

Edited March 14, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Daedalus]

"any" gives the government a blank check. The devil is in the details.

1. Certainly there must be safeguards against the abuse of power. Just as I would not want a military commander to annihilate an entire continent if less force is just as effective, so prosecutors should have limited authority to subpoena witnesses and compel testimony -- as they do today.

For instance, you're speaking about witnesses at trial. That's very similar to the "person must raise an alarm" case, but it is not the same. My question to you would be: what factors must be in place for a fore-warned person to be legally liable for not raising an alarm?

2. Just two factors: a) knowing that a felony has been or is being committed, and failing to report such information to law enforcement authorities.

Rather than giving similar examples, I think the topic is best served by using various examples that are more exactly on topic. Here are some:

* When the two shooters were killing people in Virginia a few years ago, I was just miles from one shooting site. A co-worker swore he saw a white van that had two shady looking guys in it. The van was acting strange. it seemed to be trying to make its way across Richmond by back-alleys, and the driver did not seem to know his way. He reported it to the FBI's hotline. What if he had not done so and it had actually been the right thing to do?

3. Looking "shady" (whatever that means) and trying to make one's way across Richmond by back-alleys are not felonious acts. Therefore, no one has any legal obligation to report such activities.

* Moussaoui, the so-called "19th hijacker". Does being an accessory add to one's responsibility to confess and disavow?

4. One is obligated to report criminal activity (See point 2). However, if one is himself a party to such criminal activity, the 5th Amendment exempts one from having to give testimony in the case.

* What about Moussaoui's flight-instructor. He was suspicious. However, when he spoke to his boss, the boss seemed to take the attitude that it might be some guy with too much money and an odd desire to pretend he knows to fly. What if the instructor was just a little less suspicious and had not told the authorities? Would that be criminal?

5. See points 2 and 3 above.

* Suppose he was suspicious, had called three times but did not get through and did not want to leave a message; then gave up trying. Would he still be criminally responsible?

6. First of all, he is under no obligation to report behavior that in and of itself is not criminal. Secondly, there is a wide variety of law enforcement agencies that don't have lines that are constantly busy; we also have the United States Postal System, faxes and the Internet.

If one wishes to move from "people must report crimes and plots they are aware of", to actual objective law, one has to detail the objective conditions that would make someone criminal and those that would absolve them of criminality.

See point 2.

I'm not suggesting that the law be fully detailed in a thread like this. However, it is clear that "knowing and not telling" is far too vague

Edited to add: I'll grant that -- in principle -- the idea that witnesses may not speak, people may not be subpeonaed etc. under any circumstances is a libertarian one, that drops the context of living in society. However, it does not serve to say that the government may do anything to protect rights.

As you say, it depends on context. The idea of blowing up a planet to get one bad guy may seem absurd. But what if the bad guy had the power to destroy a solar system?

[softwareNerd]

Just two factors:

a) knowing that a felony has been or is being committed, and

failing to report such information to law enforcement authorities.

Since someone other than a co-conspirator can always claim he suspected but didn't know, would you apply a 'reasonable man" standard to decide if he ought to have known?

Here's something that happened to me, I was in a parking lot, walking from my car to a store. There were probably 20 people within 50 yards of me. I saw two men jump a third man and bring him to the ground. I had no idea what was going on, but called the cops on my mobile phone. I'm pretty sure all 20 people did not do the same. Was this a situation where a felony was in progress? or could I have gone on with my business without danger of being criminally liable?

Edited to add: None of the people was in uniform or anything like that; they all were dressed about the same.

Edited March 14, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Daedalus]

Since someone other than a co-conspirator can always claim he suspected but didn't know, would you apply a 'reasonable man" standard to decide if he ought to have known?

The same question can be raised with regard to a variety of crimes: the get-away driver who didn't know his friends were robbing a bank, the 20-year old who didn't know his sex partner was under 16, the publisher who didn't know that the novel he marketed was plagiarized from another book. Nonetheless, such cases are successfully argued by plaintiffs and prosecutors all the time.

Here's something that happened to me, I was in a parking lot, walking from my car to a store. There were probably 20 people within 50 yards of me. I saw two men jump a third man and bring him to the ground. I had no idea what was going on, but called the cops on my mobile phone. I'm pretty sure all 20 people did not do the same. Was this a situation where a felony was in progress? or could I have gone on with my business without danger of being criminally liable?

The fact that some cases are tough to judge does not mean that there shouldn't be laws against failure to report a felony. By comparison, patent infringement is often quite difficult to establish in a court of law. But that is no argument against intellectual property statutes.

[softwareNerd]

The same question can be raised with regard to a variety of crimes...

Which is why I asked if you would apply a "reasonable man" test. I was curious if you were using some other principle.

The fact that some cases are tough to judge does not mean that there shouldn't be laws against failure to report a felony.

Given the example I presented, would you say that's a borderline case that's tough to judge, or is it clear-cut?

To clarify, I am not arguing that there can never be criminal liability for not reporting a crime or a planned crime. The case of a former conspirator is an example where I can see the law placing more responsibility on the individual than it would on a non-participant.

The point of the parking-lot example was to concretize further and see if there is any other narrower principle involved. Must the event be such that a reasonable person would know it is a felony, or is it sufficient that a reasonable person would suspect a felony?

Similarly, what level of "inconvenience" would a reasonable person be forced to undergo to report such a crime? Would he be off the hook if he made some effort? In the example I gave, I called the cops from my cell-phone. I got state police. They asked what city I was in. They put me through to the city-police. When I spoke to the guy there, he said: "South of XYZ Rd" is a different city [which I would have remembered, if I wasn't in such a hurry] and said he would put me through to them. What if I gave up in exasperation and said: "well then, you call the right police and tell them!" What about a really severe "inconvenience", where I know that reporting a criminal will almost certainly give me away and I feel threatened by that. Would that absolve a person of criminal liability?

If you don't have the answers, that's fine. If you do, I'd be curious to hear them.

[Daedalus]

Given the example I presented, would you say that's a borderline case that's tough to judge, or is it clear-cut?

To clarify, I am not arguing that there can never be criminal liability for not reporting a crime or a planned crime. The case of a former conspirator is an example where I can see the law placing more responsibility on the individual than it would on a non-participant.

The point of the parking-lot example was to concretize further and see if there is any other narrower principle involved. Must the event be such that a reasonable person would know it is a felony, or is it sufficient that a reasonable person would suspect a felony?

I have said:

a) knowing that a felony has been or is being committed, and

failing to report such information to law enforcement authorities.

Points a) and are provable under objective law. On the other hand, I have no idea how one would establish a legal standard for "suspicious behavior."

Similarly, what level of "inconvenience" would a reasonable person be forced to undergo to report such a crime? Would he be off the hook if he made some effort? In the example I gave, I called the cops from my cell-phone. I got state police. They asked what city I was in. They put me through to the city-police. When I spoke to the guy there, he said: "South of XYZ Rd" is a different city [which I would have remembered, if I wasn't in such a hurry] and said he would put me through to them. What if I gave up in exasperation and said: "well then, you call the right police and tell them!"

Earlier you wrote, "I'm not suggesting that the law be fully detailed in a thread like this." So how many details do you want? Consider this: the citizen must make at least three separate attempts to reach law enforcement authorities before giving up. Now do you wish to debate whether three is too few or too many?

What about a really severe "inconvenience", where I know that reporting a criminal will almost certainly give me away and I feel threatened by that. Would that absolve a person of criminal liability?

It might -- if there is evidence that someone threatened you or blocked every opportunity you had to report the crime. But some vague fear of payback wouldn't be enough to absolve you.

[softwareNerd]

So how many details do you want?

No more than you can think of off the top of your head. The more detail the better.

To sum up your position, you're saying that a person not reporting a crime should be held criminally liable when:

1. The crime is a felony

2. The person knew this

3. The person made a reasonable attempt to contact the authorities. (A reasonable person will take into account objective threats).

The assumed context is the existence os a Capitalist political system. (If one assumes a specific mixed system, then the calculus might or might not change, based on that system: US, UK, France, Argentina...).

Now that we have the detailed examples, how would you phrase it as a slightly more abstract rule. Would you be willing to support the following proposition: An "innocent" individual (i.e. someone who is not actively violating someone's rights) can be forced to act to protect someone else's rights as long as this does not impose an undue burden upon the person being so forced?

If not, how would you phrase the principle? Also, could such a principle be extended to explain why a government may draft an army when the nation is threatened?

[Godless Capitalist]

Please note that the essential issue here is one of self-defense. Altruism is no barrier to an individual's right to regain his property or appropriate recompense.

Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute has written, "If, however, in waging war our government considers the deaths of civilians in terrorist states as a cost that must be weighed against the deaths of our own soldiers (or civilians), or as a cost that must be weighed against achieving victory over the enemy, our government thereby violates its most basic function. It becomes not an agent for our self-defense, but theirs." http://store.yahoo.net/netanyahu/innocentsinwar.html

For the same reason, if a government considers the loss of the rights of "suspects" or "witnesses" in this country a cost that must be weighed against the victims of aggression, our government thereby violates its most basic function -- to protect the rights of our own citizens as opposed to the enemy: the aggressors against the coerced citizens.

Now what about the theory that it is "never justifiable for government to violate rights."

Onkar Ghate writes, ". . .the truly innocent who live in countries that initiate force against other nations will acknowledge the moral right of a free nation to bomb their countries and destroy their governments--even if this jeopardizes their own lives."

Similarly, the truly innocent who live in countries that do not initiate force against other nations, such as the United States, will acknowledge the moral right (the moral right of a free nation to use force against innocents, as in the power of subpoena, to achieve victory over coercers).

The issue of civilian casualties in a war is an entirely different issue from this thread. The responsibility for those casualties falls on the enemy leaders. Onkar Ghate's statements quoted above equating the two in my opinion draw a faulty analogy.

[Daedalus]

In many other threads, the question of who can and can not be properly called an Objectivist has come up numerous times. Also, it is a subject of heated debate between supporters of ARI and supporters of other "Objectivist" organizations such as TOC, SOLO, and others. Therefore, I'd think it appropriate that we discuss and clarify exactly who deserves to be referred to as an Objectivist, and who not.

In my understanding, an Objectivist is a person who understands and agrees with the entire philosophy of Objectivism (the exact principles of which are dervied from the philosophical writings of Rand and those who now have the legal right to speak for her, such as Peikoff.)

Being in agreement with all of the philosophical principles is different than being in agreement with all of Miss Rand's personal tastes (as GreedyCapitalist pointed out to me).

I think it is wrong for a person to claim agreement with the "fundamentals of Objectivism," throw in some contradictory principles, and still refer to oneself as an Objectivist. For example, in my opinion, a person who claims to be an Objectivist and an anarchist, should not be referred to as an Objectivist because anarchism is clearly in contradiction with Objectivism.

Also, Rand explicity stated,

This being said, I do not consider myself at this time to be an Objectivist, but rather a student of Objectivsm. In order to agree with the entire philosophy, I believe that one must have a sufficient knowledge of the entire philosophy. Since I have not reached this stage as of yet, it would be improper to refer to myself as an Objectivist, despite the fact that I agree with everything that I have learned thus far.

What are your thoughts?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Rational Egoist

http://rationalegoist.rationalmind.net

Now that we have the detailed examples, how would you phrase it as a slightly more abstract rule. Would you be willing to support the following proposition: An "innocent" individual (i.e. someone who is not actively violating someone's rights) can be forced to act to protect someone else's rights as long as this does not impose an undue burden upon the person being so forced?

"Forced to act"? <throwing hands up in despair> I tried to address this objection in my first post on this thread by referring to Onkar Ghate's essay, but I was privately cautioned against excessively quoting Objectivist authorities. Nevertheless, I do not see how we can attempt to address issues of interest to Objectivists and avoid referring to the work of professionals who have done serious, theoretical groundwork in the area of our discussion. Therefore, at the grave risk of incurring further administrative reprimand, I again refer readers to the rational, morality-driven essay by Dr. Onkar Ghate at http://store.yahoo.net/netanyahu/innocentsinwar.html

(By the way: if I paraphrased Dr. Ghate's ideas and presented them without appropriate credit, I would be nothing more than a Peter Keating.)

Ghate, a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, makes the vital point that responsibility for all death and destruction in war lies not with the party that acts in defense of those who are the victims of aggression, but rather with the party who initiates force. I argue that similarly, in criminal law, it is not the district attorney who is morally responsible for the inconvenience suffered by subpoenaed witnesses, witnesses compelled by law to report crimes, and suspects who are arrested and later found to be innocent. No, responsibility lies with the criminal, the aggressor, the initiator of force.

Should the principle of making aggressors ultimately responsible for all invasions of individual sovereignty -- even those taken to redress aggression -- be restricted to the theatre of war? Those who think so should present their case.

To paraphrase Dr. Ghate: the ethical principal of self-defense demands that, if you have the power, you shoot a holdup man who has strapped an infant to his chest. Should the child die, moral blame falls entirely on the holdup man, not you. Should not law enforcement officers representing us enjoy the same exemption?

If not, how would you phrase the principle? Also, could such a principle be extended to explain why a government may draft an army when the nation is threatened?

I am an Objectivist. An Objectivist by definition is one who subscribes to the philosophy of Ayn Rand, i.e "the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter)." (I beg you to forgive the quote from wiki.objectivismonline.net )

Since Ayn Rand opposed without exception the military draft in her works, I, as an Objectivist, must agree with her.

The issue of civilian casualties in a war is an entirely different issue from this thread. The responsibility for those casualties falls on the enemy leaders. Onkar Ghate's statements quoted above equating the two in my opinion draw a faulty analogy.

Dr. Ghate argued (persuasively, in my opinion), "If in self-defense you shoot a holdup man who has strapped an infant to his chest, and you kill the infant, moral responsibility for the child’s death lies with the holdup man not you." http://store.yahoo.net/netanyahu/innocentsinwar.html

Are you arguing that Dr. Ghate's domestic analogy to foreign war is "faulty"?

[Daedalus]

The issue of civilian casualties in a war is an entirely different issue from this thread. The responsibility for those casualties falls on the enemy leaders. Onkar Ghate's statements quoted above equating the two in my opinion draw a faulty analogy.

Sorry, but I agree with Dr. Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute. Enemies of life and liberty are just as criminal be they foreign or domestic.

[softwareNerd]

I am an Objectivist. An Objectivist by definition is one who subscribes to the philosophy of Ayn Rand...

Since Ayn Rand opposed without exception the military draft in her works, I, as an Objectivist, must agree with her.

Ah! But you can question the other premise: asking an innocent to report a crime.

[Daedalus]

Ah! But you can question the other premise: asking an innocent to report a crime.

Ayn Rand condemned taxation and the draft. Very good. Now, I've read Ayn Rand's works, more than once. Where did she specifically prohibit the government from compelling the reporting of a crime? If it's okay to use force against "innocents" in aggressor nations, why not against "innocents" in nations with internal aggressors?

[Maarten]

As long as you very strictly define when this is permissible and when it is not, I think your argument is correct, and it doesn't leave room for abuse by the government.

Due to the initiation of force against essentially innocent people it is important to properly delimit when it can happen to avoid creating a precedent for expanding governmental power.

[softwareNerd]

Ayn Rand condemned ... the draft. ... Where did she specifically prohibit the government from compelling the reporting of a crime? If it's okay to use force against "innocents" in aggressor nations, why not against "innocents" in nations with internal aggressors?

Obviously Ayn Rand did not come up ideas whimsically. Presumably "draft is bad" is not a fundamental, but depends on more fundamental principles. We can reach those more fundamental principles by asking: why is the draft bad?

Here is what you agree with:

• Protection of its citizenry is the primary or only function of government
  
• Draft may not be used even if the nation is threatened (i.e., we do not oblige people to protect their fellow citizens even when the existence of the nation is at risk)
  

Now you say that we can oblige people to report crimes because doing so is fundamental to the context of (and yes, type of obligation is force. The only question is whether or not it is legitimate, retaliatory force). Even though Ayn Rand did not specifically prohibit this concrete manifestation, can you explain why it is any different -- in principle -- from the draft example?

[Maarten]

In "The nature of government" ( I think) AR talks about that any group can only have rights derived from individuals. This includes the government, as there are no rights specifically for them, except what we decide to give them. The only right individuals have that even remotely concerns this is the right of self-defense, which is delegated to the government for protection.

I know AR said multiple times that there is no right to violate someone's rights, because that is a contradiction in terms, yet that is what we are discussing here. You're trying to justify the initiation of force against quite possibly innocent people, in that they did nothing to violate anyone's rights. The government is never justified in initiating force, its only function is the retaliatory use of force against criminals.

Legally obligating a witness to report a crime they see is essentially the same as demanding that someone rescue a person in need if it does not endanger them, and I think I remember quite specifically that there is nothing in the Objectivist ethics that says you should help someone else (who you do not know), so there is even less basis for making a law for it.

I mean this in the sense that as soon as you obligate some form of this, you're on a slippery slope and there is really no fundamental principle left to say "No!" when the government asks for the next step. Surrendering your rights like this is basically the same as allowing a little bit of irrationality into your thinking; both will spread and corrupt the rest.

[Daedalus]

Obviously Ayn Rand did not come up ideas whimsically. Presumably "draft is bad" is not a fundamental, but depends on more fundamental principles. We can reach those more fundamental principles by asking: why is the draft bad?

Here is what you agree with:

• Protection of its citizenry is the primary or only function of government
  
• Draft may not be used even if the nation is threatened (i.e., we do not oblige people to protect their fellow citizens even when the existence of the nation is at risk)
  

Now you say that we can oblige people to report crimes because doing so is fundamental to the context of (and yes, type of obligation is force. The only question is whether or not it is legitimate, retaliatory force). Even though Ayn Rand did not specifically prohibit this concrete manifestation, can you explain why it is any different -- in principle -- from the draft example?

Self-defense is a fundamental right. Government is the legal means of retaliatory force, i.e. self-defense. In exercising this retaliatory force, government may require that certain people give testimony regarding those who initiate force. Ultimately, it is not the victim of a crime or his government-protector who bears responsibility for compelling witness testimony. Rather, it is the lawbreaker, the aggressor, the violator of person and property.

Like Ayn Rand, I hold that the draft is impermissible in a free society. And I don't see how it can even be brought up in this discussion. There is simply no way that placing a phone call to the cops or taking the witness stand on a Tuesday morning is equivalent to serving as a slave for two years.

Earlier in this thread (Yesterday, 02:31 PM) softwareNerd wrote, "To clarify, I am not arguing that there can never be criminal liability for not reporting a crime or a planned crime." Very well, why not explain how your idea of compelling the reporting of a crime is different -- in principle -- from the military draft. Or am I mistaken in supposing that you oppose the draft?

[Maarten]

How is compelling someone to testify not (the threat of) initiating force against them. You're basically pointing a gun at the head of an innocent person and saying: You do this. How is that not coercion?

[Daedalus]

How is compelling someone to testify not (the threat of) initiating force against them. You're basically pointing a gun at the head of an innocent person and saying: You do this. How is that not coercion?

I explained it above: "Ultimately, it is not the victim of a crime or his government-protector who bears responsibility for compelling witness testimony. Rather, it is the lawbreaker, the aggressor, the violator of person and property." If a witness does not like having to testify, he can always sue the criminal for lost time after the trial.

Please click on the link I provided to Dr. Ghate's essay. If a man with an infant strapped to his chest points a gun at you and demands your wallet, and you respond by shooting through the baby to stop the aggressor's heart, moral responsibility for the baby's death lies with the holdup man, not you.

Killing the baby is what Ayn Rand would do. The alternative is to be a pacifist. See: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5138

[Maarten]

The problem is that it steps beyong the boundaries of what the government should properly do, and it creates a dangerous precedent in this way. It's like allowing a robber to take a little bit of your cash, or letting the government tax you for a minor amount. Once you surrender the principle you are lost.

[RationalBiker]

And I don't see how it can even be brought up in this discussion. There is simply no way that placing a phone call to the cops or taking the witness stand on a Tuesday morning is equivalent to serving as a slave for two years.

What is equivalent is the principle involved, that being that the government can compel a person who has not violated anyone's rights by the use of physical force into coerced courses of action. The duration of time is immaterial to the principle, as that would be to "bargain over inches of evil".

The concept of a "right" pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

- The Virtue of Selfishness, Chapter 12 - Men's Rights.

With that in mind, in order for you to justify that the government can use force to compel cooperation or testimony, you have to demonstrate that the person being compelled to cooperate is violating the someone's rights, and not just by the existence of a law.

The infant/self defense situation is NOT analogous. Each person is morally compelled to protect HIS OWN LIFE. Each person is NOT morally compelled to protect the lives of others.

[softwareNerd]

Killing the baby is what Ayn Rand would do. The alternative is to be a pacifist. See: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5138

I disagree with your interpretation of Ayn Rand. She would have allowed that one may morally kill an innocent. However, it does not follow that she, personally, would have chosen to kill it. [As an aside, one can be a "pacifist" without innocents being involved in the context.]

You have not reconciled the ban against forcing a person to defend his nation with the idea that a person may be forced to help its legal system.

Edited March 15, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Daedalus]

The problem is that it steps beyong the boundaries of what the government should properly do, and it creates a dangerous precedent in this way. It's like allowing a robber to take a little bit of your cash, or letting the government tax you for a minor amount. Once you surrender the principle you are lost.

If you surrender any part of your right of self-defense you are lost.

[Godless Capitalist]

Dr. Ghate argued (persuasively, in my opinion), "If in self-defense you shoot a holdup man who has strapped an infant to his chest, and you kill the infant, moral responsibility for the child’s death lies with the holdup man not you." http://store.yahoo.net/netanyahu/innocentsinwar.html

Are you arguing that Dr. Ghate's domestic analogy to foreign war is "faulty"?

Yes, that's what I'm arguing. The difference is that the US government has an obligation to protect the rights of US citizens, but the same obligation does not apply to enemy citizens.

On the infant example specifically, killing the infant might be justifiable to prevent other civilian deaths, but not simply to prevent property loss or the esccape of a criminal.

On the draft issue, I agree the draft is not equivalent to compelling a witness. However, I think taxation is roughly comparable to compelling a witness, perhaps less onerous. Suppose the country is attacked and the government does not have enough money to adequately fund the military to repel the attack. Does that justify taxing the citizens to raise the money, on the grounds that it is really the attacker that is responsible for the tax? The same question applies if the government does not have enough money to pay the police or the judges. Your reasoning seems to lead to justification for permanent coercive taxes.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Godless Capitalist