Anarchy and Objectivism

[brandonk2009]

I was talking with a friend about this last night and we discussed the view that some people believe that Rand misapplied her political principles and that she should have supported the idea that all government was improper, that she should have supported anarchy.

These people base their belief on the idea that that any institution of government and every action by the government is initiation of force against the individual. They hold that since initiation of force is wrong and improper, there should be no government.

However, Ayn Rand's formulation of a proper government, was a government who had a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force. The only role of government is to retaliate against those individuals that initiate force. If the government's only position is to retaliate against force, instead of initiate force how is it a violation of the individual?

Any anarchists out there? Any responses or thoughts? Do I understand your premises?

[D'kian]

You answer your own question.

I want to add that anarchy is little more than a paranoid fantasy. I say paranoid because most anarchist I've met also believe the wildest conspiracy theories available. And fantasy becasue it couldn't possibly work. How would you go about securing your rights without a police force and a judicial system? Worse yet, any true anarchy would be invaded within minutes, as there'd be no organized resistance to any invasion, not any large weapons systems, nor any logistics.

[DarkWaters]

I was talking with a friend about this last night and we discussed the view that some people believe that Rand misapplied her political principles and that she should have supported the idea that all government was improper, that she should have supported anarchy.

These people base their belief on the idea that that any institution of government and every action by the government is initiation of force against the individual. They hold that since initiation of force is wrong and improper, there should be no government.

However, Ayn Rand's formulation of a proper government, was a government who had a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force. The only role of government is to retaliate against those individuals that initiate force. If the government's only position is to retaliate against force, instead of initiate force how is it a violation of the individual?

Any anarchists out there? Any responses or thoughts? Do I understand your premises?

Hi Brandon,

There are actually numerous threads on these forums concerning the topic of anarchy, anarcho-capitalism and the like. You can find them using the "Search" function in the upper-righthand portion of the screen. I did some layman's research on this topic. If you have any questions on the content of any of these threads, I would be happy to discuss it with you.

--DW

[mrocktor]

Anarchists hold this position based on two flawed arguments. I found them stated boldly and reiterated in Murray N. Rothbard's "The Ethics of Freedom" (which is gospel to many libertarians) but I do not know if that is their original source.

Fallacy #1: Government is always coercive because it is financed by taxes

A simple package deal. No Objectivist defends taxation, a government does not have to be supported by taxation. End of argument. 90% of Rothbard's anarchist argument falls to the ground by rejecting this simple and painfully obvious package deal.

Fallacy #2: Government must initiate force in order to maintain its monopoly on the use of retaliatory force

This one is actually quite prickly, and I think many Objectivists have not given it the amount of thought it deserves. In essence, if a government uses force against innocent, non aggressive individuals (such as forbidding them to own a tank), it is in fact initiating force in order to maintain its monopoly.

Also, it is arguable that if an individual who is the victim of a crime pursues the criminal and by force extracts reparation - within the criteria of the law - it would be an initiation of force against him if the government treated this action as a crime.

Of course both these objections, even if granted, do not negate the possibility of a non-coercive government. In the first case, the government can simply retaliate when the individual actually uses his property to threaten others, whether intentionally or by negligence, imprudence or incompetence. This is retaliatory force, and thus legitimate.

In the second case, the government could simply prosecute the victim that "took justice into his own hands" and hold him up to the standard of the law. Did he have adequate evidence? Did he use the proper level of force? Did he extract the proper amount of compensation from the criminal. If so, and only so, he is innocent of crime. Frankly, I don't see how that standard could be met (the item about evidence, in particular) - but it gives an objective means to judge the vigilante's transgression.

In this way the government remains the ultimate arbiter, the government's objective law the only standard by which people are judged. And the monopoly on force is maintained without initiating force.

Edited March 24, 2008 by mrocktor

[Miles White]

Fallacy #2: Government must initiate force in order to maintain its monopoly on the use of retaliatory force

This one is actually quite prickly, and I think many Objectivists have not given it the amount of thought it deserves. In essence, if a government uses force against innocent, non aggressive individuals (such as forbidding them to own a tank), it is in fact initiating force in order to maintain its monopoly.

A government doesn't literally need to maintain a monopoly over the physical institutions of the police, the Law courts, and the Military, it is the retaliatory use of force that the government must uphold. There are already plenty of private agencies that provide security services (Brinks) to people who want additional 24 hour protection. There are even private courts that people have the option of using if they want to conduct a private trial without a jury. What the government must maintain a monopoly over is the retaliatory use of force or in other words, the government must be the only decider of the objective law of the land and only they can determine what is objectively wrong or right and bring about retaliatory justice to the criminal according to it. This doesn't literally mean that the government must nationalize every single court, police, or military firm that arises with in the free market. There will always be a proper function for both government and privately controlled services. The best deterrent for not having the private agencies compete with the government in a fully free society is simply through philosophical education. If enough people are taught about the shear horrors of anarchy then it's only natural that people will be motivated no matter how much more efficient a private service may be at enforcing the law, the government must always uphold the law and therefore people should always donate to their government for the sole purpose of doing so. When the populace understands the importance of objectivity in the field of law, then it should only be natural that a government will always exist to finance it's proper services without having to worry about being out-competed.

[Ifat Glassman]

Also, it is arguable that if an individual who is the victim of a crime pursues the criminal and by force extracts reparation - within the criteria of the law - it would be an initiation of force against him if the government treated this action as a crime.

...

In the second case, the government could simply prosecute the victim that "took justice into his own hands" and hold him up to the standard of the law.

Is it the role of the government to gather enough evidence to show that the man did not act by the standard of law, or do they have the right to arrest him and demand that he proves it, and justification for arrest would be that he "took justice into his own hands"?

I don't see how taking justice into one's hands is initiation of force against anyone. So in my understanding it is the government's job to prove first that the man did not act properly. Just taking the law to his own hands is not enough. What do you think?

[DarkWaters]

I don't see how taking justice into one's hands is initiation of force against anyone. So in my understanding it is the government's job to prove first that the man did not act properly. Just taking the law to his own hands is not enough. What do you think?

I think this is a very good question. I am confident that allowing individuals to use retaliatory force in an otherwise capitalist will lead to anarcho-capitalism. Thus, I surmise that the reason as to why individuals should not be empowered to use retaliatory force is for the same reason as to why we should act on principle.

On principle, a strong, central government is needed to protect the rights of all citizens by holding a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. If a citizen uses retaliatory force on his own and he does so justly, then very little damage might be done. However, if he either uses retaliatory force maliciously or he inadvertently uses retaliatory force unjustly due to a misunderstanding, then more rights will get violated in the process.

There can certainly be reasonable disputes between citizens in a free society. If citizens are empowered to use retaliatory force, then I suspect that many everyday disputes might lead to unnecessary uses of force, if not violence.

I hope that this helps!

[DavidV]

Any anarchists out there? Any responses or thoughts? Do I understand your premises?

This forum is a good place to discuss objections to anarchism - if you want to hear from the anarchists, you should probably read it in their own words.

[DavidOdden]

Is it the role of the government to gather enough evidence to show that the man did not act by the standard of law, or do they have the right to arrest him and demand that he proves it, and justification for arrest would be that he "took justice into his own hands"?

The problem is that there should be no such "standard of the law". It should not be legally possible for a person to take the law into their own hands and seek vengeance. There is a significant difference between the self-defense defense, where a person must use force to prevent a significant violation of rights, and a vigilantism defense. In an actual emergency, the situation exists for a short while and it is impossible to rely on the justice system. When a man seeks his own brand of justice, there is no emergency -- no reason to not let the law take its course. One very good reason to not do so is that the legal system approaches the matter rationally, with respect for the rights of the victim and the accuse, and with respect for the concept that crimes are punished in a known, regular way. When the victim acts out his rage against the accused, the probability of grave injustice is dramatically increased, and there is no objective benefit to sanctioning such violence.

[D'kian]

I don't see how taking justice into one's hands is initiation of force against anyone. So in my understanding it is the government's job to prove first that the man did not act properly. Just taking the law to his own hands is not enough. What do you think?

A just principle of law is that every man is considered innocent until he's proven guilty. Another such is that every man is entitled to a speedy trial. Not to mention the punishment prescribed by law will surely vary from what you might prefer to dish out.

So if you take justice into your hands you're initiating force by violating the suspect's rights indicated above, at the very least.

[Acount Overdrawn]

Is it the role of the government to gather enough evidence to show that the man did not act by the standard of law, or do they have the right to arrest him and demand that he proves it, and justification for arrest would be that he "took justice into his own hands"?

I don't see how taking justice into one's hands is initiation of force against anyone. So in my understanding it is the government's job to prove first that the man did not act properly. Just taking the law to his own hands is not enough. What do you think?

"Taking the law into one's own hands"--the problem with this is that since it is unproved, it is no different from an act of aggression, and by that fact you become a threat to everyone else in society. I think Don Watkins III brought up some good points regarding this in his essay "Epistemological Anarchy". His point was about how objectivity in a social/political context places certain demands upon individuals--namely that they have to prove to everyone that their use of force was defensive in nature and not initiatory.

[mrocktor]

I don't see how taking justice into one's hands is initiation of force against anyone. So in my understanding it is the government's job to prove first that the man did not act properly. Just taking the law to his own hands is not enough. What do you think?

I'm struggling with this issue myself, as I tried to indicate in the previous post.

At the moment I have the following things in mind:

- Peaceful coexistence, or "life as man" in society, requires objective law and a monopoly in jurisdiction. In other words, there has to be only one law and this law must be right.

This means there can be no "my law, your law" issues or competing "enforcement agencies" as anarchists like to envision. Competition in the "force market" has a name: war. There must be one government and one law within a given area.

- The government derives its "rights" from the citizens. This delegation of rights has to be voluntary. There is no "social contract" where everyone agrees to delegate their right of self defense just by being born. Nor can one argue that "society needs" you to give up your right to retaliate.

In my view, the government has to prevent you from commiting crimes - including crimes against criminals. How does one determine to what extent the use of force against a criminal is just retaliation and at which point it becomes a crime in itself? The only standard to judge by is the law.

Now, the law will stipulate a "due process" by which suspects are investigated, tried, convicted and punished. Of course a vigilante will not follow this process. The thing is, there is no right to due process - it is a restriction on the government not on individuals. The individual right to self defense is not limited.

On the other hand, vigilanteism is an act of force. As Account Overdrawn mentions in his preceding post, I also consider it entirely fitting to require the vigilante to prove that his act was justified (i.e. the burden of proof lies with him once he is objectively deterined to have perpetrated the act of force).

It is important to note that all of this does not add up to "anarcho-capitalism", since the monopolistic government will still persecute everyone who uses force. It is still the final arbiter.

Still, I have not managed to come to a clear conclusion on how a proper government should deal with this issue. I am not comfortable with criminalizing an individual's exercise of his right to defend his life and property by force nor with the compulsory delegation of these rights.

Edited March 25, 2008 by mrocktor

[DavidOdden]

The thing is, there is no right to due process - it is a restriction on the government not on individuals.

...

I also consider it entirely fitting to require the vigilante to prove that his act was justified (i.e. the burden of proof lies with him once he is objectively deterined to have perpetrated the act of force).

Here's a problem: the right to due process is tightly connected to the issue of proof. Suppose that we say that only the government is restricted by procedural law, and that individuals have the right to do anything whatsoever, as long as their actions can be later "proven" to be justified by the nature of the crime, the evidence, and the punishment prescribed by law. That means that Smith can rightly torture Jones until Jones confesses to a theft (regardless of whether Jones did it). The confession is sufficient proof that Jones is guilty, so Smith is not culpable for his actions under the law. Smith can also break in to Jones' house and "find" (plant) bogus physical evidence to further support Smith's conviction of Jones, and if there is exculpatory evidence, he can destroy that evidence. The government is not allowed to do this, because of procedural law, but if due process is not a human right, then Smith as an individual is under no legal obligation to act a particular way with respect to proving Jones' guilt.

[D'kian]

There's a pretty good movie about vigilantism called "The Star Chamber," starring an impossibly young Michael Douglas.

Briefly it's about a group of judges who are sick and tired of seeing criminals get away on technicalities, therefore they hold their own secret trails, pass sentences and carry them out. Meaning these judges hunt down the people they deem to be guilty and kill them. What happens when they go after an innocent man? Worht checking out.

A court of law provides the opportunity to prove a man guilty. This provides the moral sanction needed to impose a sentence on the convicted. If a citizen can take the law into his hands, with total disregard fro standards of proof, what's to stop government from doing the same thing?

As part of the separation of powers the police, a part of the executive branch, have a role very different from that of the courts, part of the judicial branch, or the legislature, the legislative branch. A cop can aprehend a suspect, question him under certain conditions, investigate him under certain restrictions, and gather evidence again under restrictions. He cannot execute a suspect, jail him, confiscate his money or property, or even restrict his movements in any way. But if taking the law into one's hands is justified for a private citizen, why not for a cop who knows John Doe is guilty but can't prove it? Why can't a mayor, a governor, a president, or for that matter a congressman, a senator, or a judge or a DA order the police to execute a suspect any time they think they have a criminal who might get away? Or simply to spare the victims the agony of a trial, or to save the court time and money?

If an exception can be made, it would be only when the system breaks down and provides no help at all to a citizen who's rights are being violated. I don't mean that the police and courts cannot put away a criminal, but more as if they don't even try. Suppose, and it's not much of a supossition in some places, that police were to ignore any crimes against a group largely disliked by the general population (gays, blacks, immigrants, Irish, former criminals, defense attorneys, lawyers in general, people fo the wrong religion, etc); such things have happened in various palces at various times.

Then, yes, there would be a moral right to take justice into one's hand. But doing so would also likely be suicidal. Imagine a free black man in the South in the 1860s whose wife was raped by a white man. You can safely assume the police would do nothing about it. If the agrieved man, rightly, then seeks out retribution, even something short of murder, what do you think the police would do?

[mrocktor]

Here's a problem: the right to due process is tightly connected to the issue of proof. (...)

Exactly. On one hand, the victim who personally saw a the thief and followed him home to get his wallet back has all the evidence he needs. But his testimony is not enough for a court of law. Thus my difficulty in untangling the issue to my own satisfaction.

If a citizen can take the law into his hands, with total disregard fro standards of proof, what's to stop government from doing the same thing?

Well, the citizen is ultimately answerable to the government - at least if the government is set up along the lines I mentioned above, and a law base capable of dealing with this scenario is created - which would require solving the issues David raised. The goevrnment, on the other hand, is answerable only to the constitution - to the law itself. That is the big difference.

So, the same thing that stops the government from becoming a tyranny by taxation, regulation and everything else is what stops it from becoming a tyranny by not following due process. And the government stops individuals from using unwaranted force. But the government stopping an individual from using legitimate force - that is what bugs me. And this legitimacy has to be defined by the individual's absolute rights, not by permission.

That I can shoot a guy when I am being threatened is undisputed since the police are not around 100% of the time. But can I run inside, grab a gun, jump in the car, find him and shoot him down 4 blocks away to recover my wallet? Can I gun down a criminal if there happens to be a police officer on the scene? I certainly have a right to recover my property and to defend myself, but most people here would probably argue that from the instant my life is no longer at risk I don't have a right to do it personally. The argument being that I can call the police and let them do it.

This, in my opinion, is dangerously close to saying that you may only use force in defense of your rights because you need to. This is contrary to the principle that you have an absolute right to defend yourself and your property by force.

Naturally, for most people and in most cases using force personally is a dumb decision. But the government does not exist to force you to be smart.

Edited March 25, 2008 by mrocktor

[KendallJ]

I'm struggling with this issue myself, as I tried to indicate in the previous post.

Mrock and ifat, think of this this way. It is certianly not an initiation of force if the retribution is:

a. just - i.e. fits the infraction

b. correctly applied to the perpetrator.

However, given the fact that reason does not as a rule prevail in showing this, it is possible that either an innocent party is punished, or that the guilty party is punished unjustly. As a result, those senarios would result in an initiation of force. If this is a reasonable expectation in a retribution senario, this leads to a need for due process, i.e. to temper the process of punishment to assure that reason is used in it's application, and as such a right to due process becomes a derivative right of the initiation of force principle.

That's my interpretation of the need for it.

[mrocktor]

That's my interpretation of the need for it.

Yes Kendall, and this is the standard way to look at it (I dare say, the Objectivist argument - which would put me at odds with Objectivism for the moment, which I don't take lightly at all). But how do you deal with the guy who flouts due process, goes out and actually metes out the proper punishment to the actual criminal?

You can't say that is impossible without denying reason (i.e. if it is possible for a government to make the required judgment, it is possible for an individual to do so).

You can't say the individual does not have a right to use retaliatory force (after all, the government derives this right from him);

And you can't rationally argue that "since not everyone is rational all the time, if everyone were free to retaliate it would be chaos". While the assumption is true - certainly most people seeking retribution are not in a rational frame of mind - this argument is simple pragmatism, justifying something by the envisioned consequences.

Thus my current intellectual bind.

Edited March 25, 2008 by mrocktor

[DavidOdden]

But how do you deal with the guy who flouts due process, goes out and actually metes out the proper punishment to the actual criminal?

I don't understand why this guy did so. The proper response is probably to punish the vigilante for his actions, as appropriate under the law. That's why Jack Ruby spent the rest of his life in jail. How do I treat him? As a prosecutor, I prosecute him, as a juror I convict him, as a judge I sentence him, just like I would do to anyone who arrogates the proper function of the government to himself because he felt that there was a chance that justice might not be served or it might be too slow for his liking.

You can't say the individual does not have a right to use retaliatory force (after all, the government derives this right from him)

I think you can: the individual has transferred that right to the government, because he has chosen to live in a civilized society. I refer you to p. 129 of VOS:

There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement. Or, to put it another way, he must accept the separation of force and whim (any whim, including his own).

If you can't stand to renounce the use of physical force and demand to retain the right to retaliate against those who violate your rights, that means you seek to be apart from civilized society (perhaps sneaking into town for supplies every couple of months).

The fundamental political choice that men have to make is whether to live in a free, civilized society, which means that the government "manages" your right to retaliatory force. You don't "have to" make the choice that leads to regular groceries and nice shoes, but one you have, there are certain things that you should do -- namely not be a vigilante.

[mrocktor]

I don't understand why this guy did so. The proper response is probably to punish the vigilante for his actions, as appropriate under the law.

You don't have to understand him, and you totally ignore the issue of whether a law that punishes a man for exercising his right to self defense is right.

(..)who arrogates the proper function of the government to himself because he felt that there was a chance that justice might not be served or it might be too slow for his liking.

No, not "arrogates the proper function of government", try "exercises his right". Yes, defense is the proper function of government, but this does not in itself obligate individuals to not defend themselves.

I think you can: the individual has transferred that right to the government, because he has chosen to live in a civilized society.

No, this is just social contract theory. The fact is that the individual has NOT chosen to live in a civilized society - he was born into it and has no real means to escape it short of suicide.

he must accept the separation of force and whim (any whim, including his own)

And this is really the bone. It assumes that all individuals will use force based on whim and thus must give up their right to retaliate. Or, it assumes that many individuals will use force based on whim and from that derives that all must give up their right to retaliate because "it is better for everyone that way" or "it is needed for civilized society". This is utilitarianism.

If a free society requires that an individual give up his rights against his will, it is not a free society. You can argue that the individual does NOT have a right to retaliate against criminals in the first place - but this undermines the legitimacy of government retaliation. You cannot package deal "living in society" with "choosing to give up your right of retaliation", this is the exact same argument welfare statists use to defend taxation - "if you don't like it, go away". It fails there and here for the same reason.

[DavidOdden]

You don't have to understand him, and you totally ignore the issue of whether a law that punishes a man for exercising his right to self defense is right.

I'm not ignoring that issue, I'm saying that you're obscuring the issue by ignoring the question. If it is a matter of self defense, he has that right. But the situation you described is not a matter of self defense. If it is a matter of retribution and the man just can't stand to let the government do its job, then he should be punished. If the govenment clearly and objectively refuses to recognize the man's right to justice, justice should be served. That's why you can't drop context, and another example of why Objectivism rightly rejects these verbal floating abstractions.

Yes, defense is the proper function of government, but this does not in itself obligate individuals to not defend themselves.

Completely irrelevant, since there is no issue of self defense.

No, this is just social contract theory. The fact is that the individual has NOT chosen to live in a civilized society - he was born into it and has no real means to escape it short of suicide.

And as we know, that is anarchy-theorizing -- that because a man had no choice in being born, he has no obligation to respect the rights of others. He has the right to move anywhere he wants where there are no laws, if he finds it intolerable to renounce the use of violence. Recall that you asked the question of what you do with the guy who takes the law into his own hands. The answer in this case is very simple: you put him in jail. He always has choices, even short of suicide. He can move, he can obey the law, he can work to guarantee that his property is never trespassed, and he can go to jail and remove himself from civilized society if he wishes to act like a wild animal. You can reduce this all to a simple dichotomy: choose to live qua man in a free, civilized society, or choose to not live qua man in a free, civilized society. Each choice has separate consequences.

It assumes that all individuals will use force based on whim and thus must give up their right to retaliate.

No, it actually just assume that this individual did use force on a whim. In a completely different context, for example when acting in self defense, the choice is both based on reason and allowed by law.

If a free society requires that an individual give up his rights against his will, it is not a free society.

You're assuming that a person has a free right to initiate force against someone whom he thinks has violated his rights. As a citizen, I would have the same right to use force against that man because I felt that he had violated my rights, by threatening me. Of course I run some risk in taking vigilante action against the vigilante, because my neighbor might then consider me to be threat to him and would have the right to use punitive violence against me. (Fortunately, I have some friends who I can call on to beat up my neighbor, if he violates my rights). And so on.

Do you accept or reject Rand's characterization of rights: "Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law"? If you accept that then I don't see how you can hold that a man has the right to use violence when he believes that he has been wronged. On the other hand, if you have a different view of individual rights, then I can understand how you could get into this bind. So what, in your view, are "individual rights"?

[Inspector]

David, do mrocktor the courtesy of not toying with him.

This seems like the scenario he wants - I will spell it out more clearly so that you can answer him directly:

Man A witnesses man B kill his child right in front of him. After the fact he is able to retrieve a gun. The murderer lays down on the ground and says "I surrender." Man A shoots the murderer and kills him. The law arrests him and discovers the situation, also ruling that the dead man was entirely guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt and would have been sentenced to death.

Are you saying the law should punish man A, and if so on the basis of what violation of rights?

[mrocktor]

Do you accept or reject Rand's characterization of rights: "Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law"?

Yes.

If you accept that then I don't see how you can hold that a man has the right to use violence when he believes that he has been wronged.

What I have difficulty with is to deny the right to use violence when he knows that he has been the victim of a crime, and knows the criminal. You are ignoring the possibility that an individual may actually not be acting on whim, but on objective knowledge.

I don't accept the dichotomy between self-defense and retribution (in the sense of obtaining restitution, not of punishment). A right to property means a right to take back by force that which has been stolen from you.

I don't accept the "you are free within the law" argument for mandatory delegation of this right. The law, after all, is based on what is right and not vice versa.

PS: Inspector's example is a good test. From my current point of view, the man should not be convicted of a criminal offense for doing what the law itself determines should be done. This does not mean that he should not be tried, but that the veredict should be not-guilty, on the basis that his use of force actually was proper - if he can prove it.

Edited March 26, 2008 by mrocktor

[KendallJ]

What I have difficulty with is to deny the right to use violence when he knows that he has been the victim of a crime, and knows the criminal. You are ignoring the possibility that an individual may actually not be acting on whim, but on objective knowledge.

As a matter in reality it is much more than this. One can come up with hypotehical thought experiments, but the reality is rarely this clean.

He knows that he has been victim

He can select the criminal 100%

He can on the spot, and dispassionately determine what just punishment is.

In doing so, he does not destroy the possiblity for a 3rd party to evaluate his actions to differentiate between just and unjust actions.

I woudl submit to you that even if you think that someone knows every possible situation adn can immeidately assess whether a crime has been committed, the idea of immediately determining just from unjust actions is highly provocative. There is hardly deliberation, and one could easily say that there is rarely dispassionate evaluation. The 4th opens up such courses to moral hazard where one can commit acts of immoral retribution and in doing so eliminate key evidence to the evaluation by outside parties of such actions.

It is true that man can exercise his own right to justice at times, and I believe the law allows this, when by not doing so he is in immediate danger, even if he is expected to be irrational. I can see where man could be given ability to exercise his rights himself if he is in a situation where he is assuredly rational. But if there is no immediate danger to him, why allow such a switch to be flipped at exactly the time when he can not be expected to be fully rational, and to make just judgements.

Better to restrict his rights, and forgive those specific instances where it can be shown that he acted out of passion and happened to be correct, than to allow blanket unilateral decisions to exercise our own rights and open oneself up to all sorts of significant problems or certainty, and judgement after the fact.

As a practical matter, my understanding is if it can be shown that the man was in the right but acted out of passion, that he is usually forgiven or convicted of lighter crimes. If a man witnesses his child murdered and commits an act of retribution, then he can usually claim temporary insanity, and be fine.

[KendallJ]

Another way to think of this is, let's say you allow legally acts of just retribution. What is the criminality and legality of a man who commits an unjust act of retribution. What if he makes a mistake? I would submit that under that sort of legal system, that such a man would not receive leniency. That is, if you take the law into your own hands, you better be damn sure that you're right; otherwise you've committed a breach of someone else's rights and you are completely culpable for your judgement.

Ignoring for a moment of course that this is half way ot anarchy already and the potential for abuse (because of item #4 above) is rife.

[mrocktor]

I woudl submit to you that even if you think that someone knows every possible situation adn can immeidately assess whether a crime has been committed, the idea of immediately determining just from unjust actions is highly provocative. There is hardly deliberation, and one could easily say that there is rarely dispassionate evaluation. The 4th opens up such courses to moral hazard where one can commit acts of immoral retribution and in doing so eliminate key evidence to the evaluation by outside parties of such actions.

All of this is true.

But if there is no immediate danger to him, why allow such a switch to be flipped at exactly the time when he can not be expected to be fully rational, and to make just judgements.

Better to restrict his rights, and forgive those specific instances where it can be shown that he acted out of passion and happened to be correct, than to allow blanket unilateral decisions to exercise our own rights and open oneself up to all sorts of significant problems or certainty, and judgement after the fact.

You make the sticking point extremely salient in this argument. It is not a matter of "allowing", it is a matter of rights. When we start talking about it being "better" to allow this or forbid that we leave the realm of principle and fall into utilitarianism.

As a practical matter, my understanding is if it can be shown that the man was in the right but acted out of passion, that he is usually forgiven or convicted of lighter crimes. If a man witnesses his child murdered and commits an act of retribution, then he can usually claim temporary insanity, and be fine.

I don't think someone who rationally performs an act of legitimate force should have to use such a subterfuge (in fact, I'm not sure "temporary insanity" is even a valid concept much less defense).

Another way to think of this is, let's say you allow legally acts of just retribution. What is the criminality and legality of a man who commits an unjust act of retribution. What if he makes a mistake? I would submit that under that sort of legal system, that such a man would not receive leniency. That is, if you take the law into your own hands, you better be damn sure that you're right; otherwise you've committed a breach of someone else's rights and you are completely culpable for your judgement.

Yes. I would go further, you have to be sure you can prove it to others. If Inspector's hypothetical father killed the man who murdered his daughter and in the process destroyed the evidence that would incriminate the killer (his own testimony becomes worthless, to begin with) - he should be charged and convicted of first degree murder himself.

This is why I don't think such a "rational vigilante" clause undermines the rule of law or the government's authority or the principle of individual rights.