Not Reporting A Crime

[Daedalus]

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.

Yes, each person is "morally compelled to protect HIS OWN LIFE." Under rule of government that protection is provided by a legalized monopoly of defensive force. If I may legitimately shoot through the infant to save my own life, so may my agent of self-defense, a police officer. Similarly, in order to provide defense against a serial murderer, the government may compel testimony of those who saw the murderer perform his crimes. Why should a bullet through a baby be permissible as a means of self-defense, but not a subpoena?

[Daedalus]

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.

Ayn Rand wrote, "When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life." http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5138

Are you suggesting that when confroted with this situation, Ayn Rand would have taken a course that did not value self-esteem and the sanctity of her own life?

[As an aside, one can be a "pacifist" without innocents being involved in the context.]

Ayn Rand described those "who won't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people" as "g*dd*mn*d pacifists." http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5138

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.

I consider the answer I gave you satisfactory. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, you yourself have not ruled out laws that require one to help the legal system. So how do you reconcile that with opposing the draft?

[DavidOdden]

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."

Have you changed your position on responsibility? How is it that the victim of a crime does not now bear responsibility for what befalls him? It is important to (noncontradictorily) integrate your concepts, and I don't see how you can integrate this with the claim you made earlier.

If a witness does not like having to testify, he can always sue the criminal for lost time after the trial.

The issue is not whether a person likes to testify or not, but rather whether testifying works towards that person's goal -- his own life. The govenment is not the proper judge of what actions further the interests of the individual, and it is entirely wrong for the government to make those decisions for a man. What the government is supposed to do is establish and enforce rules that limit the actions of others, so that one man does not violate the rights of others.

You ask "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". The principle is entirely different. In a civilized society, man cedes his right to the proper use of force to the objective control of government. The premise of having a systems of laws and courts is based on the principle that we have decided to live in a civilized society, not the tribal chaos of Somalia or Afghanistan. The relationship between nations is fundamentally different -- nations have not decided to cede their rights to the proper use of force to the objective control of government. At the global level, we have anarchy. This means that there is no real government whom we might call upon to protect us against aggression by foreign states. Just as the man who lives outside of civilization depends on the good-will and non-aggessive tendencies of his neighbors but still must be prepared to protect his rights using any force needed, a free nation must be prepared to destroy an attacking aggressor, and not commit suicide out of pity for the aggressor.

The primary flaw in your argument is that you think it is necessary to violate the rights of one person in order to protect the rights of another, and that is is sufficient to lay the blame for the violation of rights on the accused.

I'm puzzled, and potentially outraged, by your claim that Ayn Rand would kill the baby. I have read both Ghate's essay and the Ford Hall comments on pacifism, and I see no sanction whatsoever for baby-killing in self-defense. If you want to present Ayn Rand's position, you should use Ayn Rand's word. If you want to present your own position, that baby-killing is the only alternative to pacifism and suicide, you can do that under your own name. To imply that Rand advocated baby-killing is insulting; and it indicates that you haven't fully grasped certain aspects of Objectivism. Objectivism does not hold that we should look around for someone else to take the blame and then gleefully violate the rights of innocent people. We must act to survive, and if death is our only alternative, we should act to live. The fact of an earlier rights violation does not justify perpetuating the violation of rights.

Here is a simple application of the Objectivist ethics to your baby-killing plan -- Ayn Rand would have shot the assailant between the eyes, killing the assailant and sparing the baby.

[Daedalus]

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.

So the President, if he had the means to do so, could not morally have ordered that United Flight 93 be shot down? After all, it had quite a few U.S. citizens on board.

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.

Why would you assume that the holdup man would not pull the trigger once you had dropped your gun and handed over your wallet? Anytime a gun is pointed at you, count on it being loaded and count on it being fired.

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.

I could not consider myself an Objectivist (i.e., one who believes in the philosophy of Ayn Rand), if I supported either taxation or the draft. Ayn Rand opposed both. If you wish to claim that Ayn Rand was inconsistent in opposing the draft but permitting the use of force against innocents standing behind a gunman, I'd have to disagree.

[Daedalus]

Have you changed your position on responsibility? How is it that the victim of a crime does not now bear responsibility for what befalls him? It is important to (noncontradictorily) integrate your concepts, and I don't see how you can integrate this with the claim you made earlier.

Who said the victim of a crime is not responsible for his own life? Not me. Citizens who take measures to thwart crime, such as putting a proper Objectivist government in power, reduce their chances of becoming victims.

The issue is not whether a person likes to testify or not, but rather whether testifying works towards that person's goal -- his own life. The govenment is not the proper judge of what actions further the interests of the individual, and it is entirely wrong for the government to make those decisions for a man. What the government is supposed to do is establish and enforce rules that limit the actions of others, so that one man does not violate the rights of others.

Yes, establish and enforce rules. One such rule forbids the hijacking of planes. If the President had the power to order United Flight 93 shot down, that would be one way of enforcing rules and providing for the defense of the nation. Now does blowing the plane up in mid-air further the interests of the non-hijackers on board? Hardly. But, as Ayn Rand pointed out, "Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent."

You ask "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". The principle is entirely different. In a civilized society, man cedes his right to the proper use of force to the objective control of government. The premise of having a systems of laws and courts is based on the principle that we have decided to live in a civilized society, not the tribal chaos of Somalia or Afghanistan. The relationship between nations is fundamentally different -- nations have not decided to cede their rights to the proper use of force to the objective control of government. At the global level, we have anarchy. This means that there is no real government whom we might call upon to protect us against aggression by foreign states. Just as the man who lives outside of civilization depends on the good-will and non-aggessive tendencies of his neighbors but still must be prepared to protect his rights using any force needed, a free nation must be prepared to destroy an attacking aggressor, and not commit suicide out of pity for the aggressor.

Nothing to disagree with here.

The primary flaw in your argument is that you think it is necessary to violate the rights of one person in order to protect the rights of another, and that is is sufficient to lay the blame for the violation of rights on the accused.

It is not always necessary. But in the hypothetical cases of United 93 and the holdup man with the baby, it may be necessary. And when force is used in self-defense, the ultimate blame must be cast on the initiator of force.

I'm puzzled, and potentially outraged, by your claim that Ayn Rand would kill the baby. I have read both Ghate's essay and the Ford Hall comments on pacifism, and I see no sanction whatsoever for baby-killing in self-defense. If you want to present Ayn Rand's position, you should use Ayn Rand's word. If you want to present your own position, that baby-killing is the only alternative to pacifism and suicide, you can do that under your own name. To imply that Rand advocated baby-killing is insulting; and it indicates that you haven't fully grasped certain aspects of Objectivism. Objectivism does not hold that we should look around for someone else to take the blame and then gleefully violate the rights of innocent people. We must act to survive, and if death is our only alternative, we should act to live. The fact of an earlier rights violation does not justify perpetuating the violation of rights.

Ayn Rand wrote, "When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life." http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5138

Now is it your position that when Ayn Rand wrote, "never mind . . . who is behind him," she did not mean to include infants but adults only?

Here is a simple application of the Objectivist ethics to your baby-killing plan -- Ayn Rand would have shot the assailant between the eyes, killing the assailant and sparing the baby.

And presumably she'd have a SWAT team climb aboard United 93 in mid-air and disarm the hijackers of their box-cutters.

[Godless Capitalist]

I'm puzzled, and potentially outraged, by your claim that Ayn Rand would kill the baby. I have read both Ghate's essay and the Ford Hall comments on pacifism, and I see no sanction whatsoever for baby-killing in self-defense. If you want to present Ayn Rand's position, you should use Ayn Rand's word. If you want to present your own position, that baby-killing is the only alternative to pacifism and suicide, you can do that under your own name. To imply that Rand advocated baby-killing is insulting; and it indicates that you haven't fully grasped certain aspects of Objectivism. Objectivism does not hold that we should look around for someone else to take the blame and then gleefully violate the rights of innocent people. We must act to survive, and if death is our only alternative, we should act to live. The fact of an earlier rights violation does not justify perpetuating the violation of rights.

Here is a simple application of the Objectivist ethics to your baby-killing plan -- Ayn Rand would have shot the assailant between the eyes, killing the assailant and sparing the baby.

Very creative! But such a solution may not always be possible. Suppose your only weapon is a shotgun. If the only way to defend your life would be to shoot an innocent person along with the person threatening you, I think it would be justifiable to do so. Daedalus did quote Ayn Rand's words, and in my opinion interpreted them correctly.

My issue is with applying this principle to situations where there is no immediate threat, eg compelling witnesses in order to prosecute a criminal.

[AisA]

Who said the victim of a crime is not responsible for his own life? Not me.

But you have not said that one is merely "responsible for his own life". You have said that when someone else violates your rights, you must assume responsibility for having your rights violated. See HERE. in post 10. Nor have you ever explained what "assuming responsiblity" means; you have only indicated what it does not mean.

[Godless Capitalist]

I could not consider myself an Objectivist (i.e., one who believes in the philosophy of Ayn Rand), if I supported either taxation or the draft. Ayn Rand opposed both. If you wish to claim that Ayn Rand was inconsistent in opposing the draft but permitting the use of force against innocents standing behind a gunman, I'd have to disagree.

I don't think those are inconsistent, no. I think that it is inconsistent to support coercing witnesses but not support taxation to pay the police and the military. I'm not aware of any statements by Ayn Rand on coercing witnesses; this seems to be an issue that Objectivism does not directly address.

[softwareNerd]

Daedalus did quote Ayn Rand's words, and in my opinion interpreted them correctly.

Proper interpretation implies that it should integrate with everything else.

I do not understand why this discussion is morphing into the killing of bystanders. However, while we're doing so, here's my first Ayn Rand quote: "I don't think I could kill an innocent bystander if my life was in danger..."

I look forward to interpretations.

[Daedalus]

But you have not said that one is merely "responsible for his own life". You have said that when someone else violates your rights, you must assume responsibility for having your rights violated. See HERE. in post 10. Nor have you ever explained what "assuming responsiblity" means; you have only indicated what it does not mean.

Assuming responsibility for securing your life and liberty means that ultimately it is the individual who has to make sure that he survives and does become the victim of a predator. It does not mean taking the moral blame for acts of coercion against one. And it not mean throwing one's hands up in defeat when one is confronted with an attack or the threat of one.

[DavidOdden]

Who said the victim of a crime is not responsible for his own life? Not me.

You are ignoring the context, specifically what you yourself said and what I said. Your question is irrelevant. Let me restate my point, so that you can understand what I said. In a previous thread you asserted that it is the responsibility of every citizen not to be robbed. In this thread you asserted that the victim of a crime does not bear responsibility for compelling testimony. By your reasoning, the victim of a crime is responsible for the consequence of his actions -- such as chosing to be in a crime-ridden area. One of these consequences may be the further violation of other peoples' rights. I don't see how you can integrate the principle that a person is responsible for the consequences of their actions (being mugged) with your claim that the victim and the government are not responsible for violating the rights of witnesses. I suggest that the problem lies in your overzealous application of the concept "responsibility".

One such rule forbids the hijacking of planes. If the President had the power to order United Flight 93 shot down, that would be one way of enforcing rules and providing for the defense of the nation.

This is irrelevant, because it was an emergency. Please note, btw, that the President does have the authority to order civilian planes to be shot down in such an emergency, so your particular example is also irrelevant to the point that you want to make.

It is not always necessary. But in the hypothetical cases of United 93 and the holdup man with the baby, it may be necessary. And when force is used in self-defense, the ultimate blame must be cast on the initiator of force.

Agreed. The ethics of emergencies is entirely different from the ethics of normal life; the propriety of blowing away the baby has to be judged on the basis of the facts -- it is not sufficient justification for killing a baby that a mugger is holding a baby. We don't need to split hairs over what those situations would be; instead we should identify the principle that guides men in emergencies. That principle is that you should not violate the rights of innocents if does not result in justice.

Now is it your position that when Ayn Rand wrote, "never mind . . . who is behind him," she did not mean to include infants but adults only?

No, it is my position that Rand did not advocate killing babies, as your statement "Killing the baby is what Ayn Rand would do" implies. Rand would have concluded that you are not morally obliged to let yourself be killed because your only alternative is killing a baby to stop the assailant. These are radically different conclusions; and as applied to initiating force against witnesses, the underlying emergency principle is inapplicable. Trials are not emergencies. The root question in this thread is about a legal obligation to report crimes (there is none). AisA raised the legitimate question about the distinction between the right to not report crimes and the legitimacy of compelling testimony. The thread is moving way off target.

[Daedalus]

Proper interpretation implies that it should integrate with everything else.

I do not understand why this discussion is morphing into the killing of bystanders. However, while we're doing so, here's my first Ayn Rand quote: "I don't think I could kill an innocent bystander if my life was in danger..."

I look forward to interpretations.

Would it be considered impolite to ask for the source of the quote?

[DavidOdden]

Would it be considered impolite to ask for the source of the quote?

Not in the least: p. 113-114 of the "Answers" book.

[D'kian]

The purpose of this thread is not to determine what IS against the law, but rather what should or should not be against the law.

By now I've fallen behind.

Anyway, what I meant to say is that someone with definite knowledge of a crime, would be aiding the criminal by not reporting it to the police. Therefore the would-be informant shares in the moral responsibility, even if he dind't initiate the use of force. And therfore the law, properly, considers such a person an accessory to the crime.

In addition, not helping to stop a criminal when one can do so without much risk to one's self, helps all criminals and hurts the police.

Of course, when inofrming on a criminal puts one at risk, or one's loved ones, then there is a measure of moral justification in not reporting it.

One thing I want to stress is that I speak only about definite knowledge, and not of suspicions.

[Daedalus]

You are ignoring the context, specifically what you yourself said and what I said. Your question is irrelevant. Let me restate my point, so that you can understand what I said. In a previous thread you asserted that it is the responsibility of every citizen not to be robbed. In this thread you asserted that the victim of a crime does not bear responsibility for compelling testimony.

Here's what I wrote, "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." By this I meant that the victim of a crime and his government protector are not morally to blame for the inconvenience done to a witness who must testify; it is the predator who is to blame. There is no inconsistency between this statement and holding that the individual is ultimately responsible for securing his life and liberty.

By your reasoning, the victim of a crime is responsible for the consequence of his actions -- such as chosing to be in a crime-ridden area. One of these consequences may be the further violation of other peoples' rights. I don't see how you can integrate the principle that a person is responsible for the consequences of their actions (being mugged) with your claim that the victim and the government are not responsible for violating the rights of witnesses.

Being responsible for securing one's own liberty does not mean that the victim of a hold-up is ethically at fault for a witness having to take a day off work to testify in the suspect's trial. It is the perpetrator who takes the blame.

This is irrelevant, because it was an emergency. Please note, btw, that the President does have the authority to order civilian planes to be shot down in such an emergency, so your particular example is also irrelevant to the point that you want to make.

If the President is acting morally (as well as legally) in shooting down a hijacked plane full of innocent U.S. citizens, then my point has been confirmed: that the rights of one person are sometimes unfortunately violated in order to protect the self-defense rights of another. This is precisely the point that Dr. Ghate makes in his example of the holdup man and the infant.

No, it is my position that Rand did not advocate killing babies, as your statement "Killing the baby is what Ayn Rand would do" implies. Rand would have concluded that you are not morally obliged to let yourself be killed because your only alternative is killing a baby to stop the assailant.

Saying that "Rand did not advocate killing babies" does not address any part of my argument. I never implied any such advocacy. Rather, I provided a specific hypothetical authored by Dr. Ghate and carefully explained why Ayn Rand would agree with using defensive force, even if it had unfortunate consequences to a third party: "answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him."

These are radically different conclusions; and as applied to initiating force against witnesses, the underlying emergency principle is inapplicable. Trials are not emergencies.

What is your definition of an "emergency"? If it means some short-term event, what about a war that goes on for 10 years or so? After, say, five years on conflict, would military commanders be forbidden to take any action with the possibility of collateral damage?

The root question in this thread is about a legal obligation to report crimes (there is none).

"Under Ohio law, persons who have knowledge of a felony (a victim of or witness to the crime) are required to report the crime to the police (Ohio Revised Code § 2921.22). Failure to report a crime may itself be a crime." http://www.ps.ohio-state.edu/police/campus...rting_crime.php

Edited March 15, 2006 by Daedalus

[DavidOdden]

Anyway, what I meant to say is that someone with definite knowledge of a crime, would be aiding the criminal by not reporting it to the police. Therefore the would-be informant shares in the moral responsibility, even if he dind't initiate the use of force.

Aiding the criminal would be e.g. to knowingly rent him a getaway car, providing him with access codes, taping a lock open, giving him a gun so that he can threaten or kill a person. It's important to not change the meaning of the concept. I agree that in many cases, you ought to report potential crimes to the police, but that judgment has to be made by the individual, based on his values. Very often, it would be wrong to report a crime, for example it would be wrong to report an illegal immigrant, to turn in a customer or salesman of drugs, to turn in someone for not paying taxes or for hiding income from the government. If reporting a crime against someone else causes a loss of value to you, you have to judge which is of greater value to you -- your life, or the life of the stranger. The moral thing to do is report crimes when you would gain value from doing so.

And therfore the law, properly, considers such a person an accessory to the crime.

First, no it doesn't, and second, it shouldn't. There is a major difference between morality and law.

Of course, when inofrming on a criminal puts one at risk, or one's loved ones, then there is a measure of moral justification in not reporting it.

This seems to contradict the stronger statement that you made, that not reporting a crime should itself be a crime. I presume you're not advocating a law mandating self-sacrifice. If you do propose that there should be a law obligating people to report actual or planned crimes, what exactly would such a law state? Don't forget to include some statement about knowledge vs. suspicion.

[DavidOdden]

"Under Ohio law, persons who have knowledge of a felony (a victim of or witness to the crime) are required to report the crime to the police (Ohio Revised Code § 2921.22). Failure to report a crime may itself be a crime."

Feh. I stand corrected -- law is a wonderful, flexible, always-mutable thing. Blasted communist goverment. Still, the law declares to be a second-degree misdemeanor the failure to report knowledge of a felony, with numerous exceptions (primarily dealing with not being required to rat out family members or to give up priveleged info, so a rape victim could be prosecuted for failing to report -- it'll be interesting to check whether that has ever happened).

What I should have said is that there should be no legal obligation to report a crime, not that no tinpot altruistic state hasn't imposed such an obligation. I was unaware of the depths of depravity of my state.

[Maarten]

Daedalus, I don't think the issue is that the blame rests on the criminal. The fundamental fact here is whether or not you allow the government to initiate force at all.

It's a bit like saying: It's not a problem that someone gets shot, because we are properly blaming the bad guy for it. If I were having my rights violated in that case that wouldn't matter to me one iota.

[Daedalus]

Daedalus, I don't think the issue is that the blame rests on the criminal. The fundamental fact here is whether or not you allow the government to initiate force at all.

It's a bit like saying: It's not a problem that someone gets shot, because we are properly blaming the bad guy for it. If I were having my rights violated in that case that wouldn't matter to me one iota.

Defensive force is retaliatory not initiatory in nature. In considering a case, you must ask who was the first person to act in a way that put another's rights in jeopardy. We have discussed shooting through a baby and shooting down an airliner to eliminate the threats posed respectively by a gunman and hijackers. Clearly, those who react to kidnapping/hjacking by sending a bullet through a baby and a missile into a hijacked plane did not create the crisis. Their ability to respond in a way that spares all innocents has been intentionally limited by the aggressors. Therefore, the aggressors must take full blame for loss of any innocent life. Ayn Rand: "Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent."

[Maarten]

But it is not retaliatory force when you force an innocent bystander to do something.

Hmm, I should probably amend that. But still, don't you agree that it creates a precedent for the use of force against innocent individuals? Once you allow that, anywhere, it becomes much easier to slowly expand when it can "properly" happen. I think this would give statists a huge opening for moving towards a state with less freedom.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Maarten

[DavidOdden]

Here's what I wrote, "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." By this I meant that the victim of a crime and his government protector are not morally to blame for the inconvenience done to a witness who must testify; it is the predator who is to blame. There is no inconsistency between this statement and holding that the individual is ultimately responsible for securing his life and liberty.

Just to be clear, what you're saying is that you didn't intend to make a claim about responsibility, you intended that statement to be about blame. Is that correct? It's an important distinction to make -- blame is not the same as responsibility -- yet they are often treated the same, to the point that it's easy to make mistakes.

Saying that "Rand did not advocate killing babies" does not address any part of my argument. I never implied any such advocacy.

The one part of your argument that it does address is the point in post #45 is where you asserted, without any evidence to back it up, "Killing the baby is what Ayn Rand would do". Perhaps you meant "I bet that Ayn Rand would have killed the baby", though that doesn't square to well with her statement "I don't think I could kill an innocent bystander if my life was in danger". Rand is conventionally taken to be the authoritative source on Objectivism.

What is your definition of an "emergency"? If it means some short-term event, what about a war that goes on for 10 years or so? After, say, five years on conflict, would military commanders be forbidden to take any action with the possibility of collateral damage?

The duration of the event is irrelevant: it is the immediacy of the situation. In war, there are constant immediate threats -- attacks. Unless you are contending that the concept of "emergency" is invalid and therefore all ethics should be based on emergencies, I don't see the point in further pursuing questions about the ethics of emergencies, at least in this thread, which is about something entirely different.

[Maarten]

The duration of the event is irrelevant: it is the immediacy of the situation. In war, there are constant immediate threats -- attacks. Unless you are contending that the concept of "emergency" is invalid and therefore all ethics should be based on emergencies, I don't see the point in further pursuing questions about the ethics of emergencies, at least in this thread, which is about something entirely different.

I agree, I think she defined an emergency something like" A situation with a limited timespan which makes normal human survival impossible"

[Daedalus]

But it is not retaliatory force when you force an innocent bystander to do something.

Hmm, I should probably amend that. But still, don't you agree that it creates a precedent for the use of force against innocent individuals? Once you allow that, anywhere, it becomes much easier to slowly expand when it can "properly" happen. I think this would give statists a huge opening for moving towards a state with less freedom.

Sometimes defensive force brings regrettable but unavoidable costs to third parties. But the vital point is that the defensive force as well as its unfortunate consequences was made necessary by the initiator of violence.

As for setting precedents, I have already explained on this thread that military commanders and public prosecutors should not have unchecked powers to coerce innocents.

[Maarten]

But if you can't even morally obligate someone to help out in such a situation (which is my understanding from the Objectivist ethics), then how do you justify making it legally obligatory? This just seems like a way to enforce altruistic behaviour. You are under no moral obligation to report what you see happening to a third party, and it is very strange to give the government the power to force you to do so in this case.

[RationalBiker]

Why should a bullet through a baby be permissible as a means of self-defense, but not a subpoena?

Because they are two different contexts. One is an emergency situation in defense of one's own life where an immediate action is required to sustain that life versus non-emergency situation compelling a third person (not the victim or the suspect) to act by means of coercion. The policeman has CHOSEN to act as an intermediary of your rights by virtue of his job. He is compensated for his free choice to act. The witness HAS NOT freely chosen to act on your behalf, and in the current court situations IS NOT compensated for their time or actions. These situations are not comparable.

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.

(my bold emphasis)

You proclaimed that you were an Objectivist earlier in the thread, and you claimed that as such you MUST follow what Objectivism says. Yet in this situation, you want to ignore a fundamental aspect of man's rights according to Objectivism. My rights impose NO obligations on my neighbor, nor his rights on me except in the negative, not to act to violate his rights. However, you are asserting that if SOMEONE ELSE is going to violate or is violating another person's rights, I must act in a POSITIVE manner and do something about it, despite what Objectivism says about rights. Compelling testimony or making a phone call is a POSITIVE act of obligation you are coercing on one person based on the violated rights of another person. As long as I don't violate a person's rights, their rights have no hold or obligation over me to act in a positive manner, such as compelling me to make a phone call, testify in court, etc.