Retaliatory force and proportion in Galt's speech

[exaltron]

Looking for some help on a particularly difficult shyster troll on the Ayn Rand Lovers group on myspace. I've argued as to why his propositions are objectively false and non-sensical, but unfortunately I think he's hit on a weakness in the Galt speech that can conceivably be interpreted to his shystery conclusion. He reasons thus:

Because Rand has Galt say the following:

Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder; the premise of destroying man's capacity to live.

It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own.

He concludes:

The use of lethal retaliatory force against one who initiates force, to whatever purpose or extent, is permissible. It must then be true that to kill someone who becomes angry at you and shoves you during a basketball match is permissible, because he has initiated force to some purpose and to some extent, and is therefore a killer acting in a manner wider than murder.

I'll grant that the torture bit doesn't necessarily follow. But neither is it clear that "gratuitous" retaliatory force is inconsistent with Objectivism. And I know for certain that Yaron Brooks of ARI has defended Israeli and American policies regarding the rough treatment of certain classes of enemy combatants.

A bit of a reach of course, I think that's obvious to anyone, but I think it's unfortunate that in making her point so stridently and stylistically via Galt, Rand opens up her retaliation to such a conceivable interpretation.

I've responded by pointing out that it doesn't necessarily follow, that it certainly doesn't make sense, it's not in anyone's rational self-interest to be frivolous in responding to the initiation of force. I and other posters also quoted lines from VoS that seemed to shut him up somewhat, such as:

The use of force— even its retaliatory use— cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful co-existence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbor's intentions are good or bad, whether their judgement is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice— the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.

But while this indicates the need for objective and non-capricious laws, it doesn't explicitly point to a need for a proportionate or measured response.

Always looking for the philosophical slam-dunk, I combed all my sources: the Galt speech, OPAR, CTUI, VoS, etc., trying to find some explicit statement that would include the idea of proportionality to the retaliation concept in objectivism, but to no avail.

So I'm wondering if anyone here can help me with or direct me towards a quote or even a scenario in AS, which would make this tool STFU once and for all.

Not trying to "call in an airstrike" here, though if anyone wants to have a go at this evader, the discussion can be found here

[Ifat Glassman]

But while this indicates the need for objective and non-capricious laws, it doesn't explicitly point to a need for a proportionate or measured response.

...

So I'm wondering if anyone here can help me with or direct me towards a quote or even a scenario in AS, which would make this tool STFU once and for all.

(bold emphasis mine)

Guiding principles for quantifying punishments <--Welcome to the club

[exaltron]

(bold emphasis mine)

Guiding principles for quantifying punishments <--Welcome to the club

Thanks! I was looking for a directly sourced quote for the coup de grace, but this helps make my point that mainstream Objectivism does not share his whacko interpretation of Galt's speech. Here is my latest post:

Daniel:

I went ahead and read Virtue of Selfishness last night, too. I kept turning the page fearing that one line that was going to prove my analyses here painfully wrong. Something like, "Objective ethics demand that before the state's robots impose punishment, care be taken to ensure they are programmed to apply only that force which lies in reasonable proportion to the originating violence."

Didn't find it.

Are we still on this? You know what, Rand also didn't say that you shouldn't smear yourself in feces and running down the street yelling "I am the Poo-King, I can do anything!", but if you need that made explicit, perhaps Objectivism isn't for you.

Objectivism is not a dogma. It is a rational system of thought, a place to begin. There are many aspects of her philosophy that she didn't expand, simply because she was one woman trying to correct thousands of years of bad philosophy, as well as write astonishingly eloquent works of fiction. You will note in reading her non-fiction that she explicity says in certain places something to the effect of "that is beyond the scope of my expertise" or "the details would need to be worked out by such-and-such an expert".

It is emphatically not the job of a philosopher to expand into endless concretes and detailed practical applications. The job of a philosopher is to identify abstract principles, pointing out concretes and examples when necessary to illustrate, but generally to remain at the top of the intellectual food-chain when it comes to applying the larger principles that are identified.

I admit that the language she uses in Galt's speech is unfortunate, she could have been more precise about what it means to be "a killer", etc., but again, Objectivism is not about simply internalizing everything Rand said and retiring your brain. Almost any objectivist could tell you her philosophy is based on the primacy of reason, the need to think rationally and the importance of self-interest in any valid moral system.

So once again, what would be the reason for wanting to unleash unlimited retaliatory violence on someone for a minor infraction? The reasons for enacting a legally encoded system of measured responses are myriad and obvious, and I have no doubt that if individual rights were objectively guaranteed, such a system would be enacted, whether by a majority or by appointed experts.

And if there is any doubt as to how mainstream objectivists weigh in on this issue, this thread should clear things up. As you can see, you are the only one who interpreted Galt's speech as condoning limitless retaliatory violence.

[Inspector]

Are we still on this? You know what, Rand also didn't say that you shouldn't smear yourself in feces and running down the street yelling "I am the Poo-King, I can do anything!", but if you need that made explicit, perhaps Objectivism isn't for you.

Nice. I may have to use that some day...

[exaltron]

Nice. I may have to use that some day...

Aw shucks, I'm flattered! Especially coming from the guy who said:

here.. come at me with this bowl of raspberries

[insert silly-emoticon-I-have-no-business-using-at-my-age here]

[Inspector]

Aw shucks, I'm flattered! Especially coming from the guy who said:

Uh-oh. I'm being watched...

[insert paranoid-emoticon-I-have-no-business-using-at-my-age here]

oh, fine: