Delegating the right of self-defence

Political Philosophy
1

In Rand’s essay “The Nature of Government” she explains why people should not be able to enforce laws themselves:

"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 physicial force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement.”

It seems odd to me to say first that a person has a right to physical self-defense, then to say they MUST delegate it to other people. As a practical matter Rand’s position makes sense, but strictly speaking I don’t see why someone could not decide to keep that power for themselves. If such a person used that power arbitrarily they could still be arrested and punished just as anyone else could be.

To look at the issue a little more widely, Rand approvingly quotes the Declaration of Independence saying that “governments derive their … powers from the consent of the governed” What if the governed refuse to give that consent? As far as I can see they would be within their rights to do so, even though I will readily admit the results might not be pleasant.

2

Imagine that there were no government, and that everyone were able to “enforce laws themselves.” How would laws even be determined? As an individual, I could make the claim that it is a “law” that no one can initiate force against another. What happens when a thug comes along who disagrees with me? How about when a group of thugs disagree with me?

You see, if there were no centralized government to enforce the laws, there would be no objective means by which laws could even be determined, let alone enforced. The society in question would reduce to warring gangs all with different ideas of what the “laws” should be and how they should be “enforced.”

3

Yes, I certainly see the potential for practical problems, but you are not really answering my questions about the principles involved.

Also, I’m not sure why having a government make the creation and enforcement of laws any more objective. After all, we now have a government that routinely violates rights and in which legislators create irrational laws, and in which judges and juries frequently fail to follow the law. Government is just a group of human beings, not robots.

You say “As an individual, I could make the claim that it is a “law” that no one can initiate force against another. What happens when a thug comes along who disagrees with me? How about when a group of thugs disagree with me?”

Interestingly, that is that exact situation we are in now. Objectivists claim that force should not be initiated against them, but the government/gang disagrees. As a practical matter, the law is determined by whoever is in power, not by some rational robot.

In any case, what I am proposing is not anarchy, but rather a system in which the right to self-defense resides with both the individual and the government, with the government having the final say.

Let me ask also whether Objectivists think they have the right to violate laws that they think are irrational. If so (and I think the answer is “yes”) how is that different from someone in an Objectivist society deciding to break laws they don’t agree with?

4

Consider this question, for it may help you answer your original question:

Suppose an individual DID refuse to delegate his right to self defense? What exactly would happen? How would such a person be treated by a proper govt compared to how he was treated previously? (You may give concrete examples if you think they will help). In other words, what is the difference between a situation where we share the same agent and a situation where you have no agent and I do? What actions could my agent not take that he could previously - ie what means of defense against force (or threat thereof) could not be exercised against the ‘self-defending’ you, which could be exercised against you when we shared an agent?

5

In any case, what I am proposing is not anarchy, but rather a system in which the right to self-defense resides with both the individual and the government, with the government having the final say.

That’s what we have now.

Pretend you’re cornered in a back alley by some criminal, and you pull out a gun and shoot him dead. The government looks at those facts and any others that may or may not indicate that you had no alternative, and either convicts you of manslaughter or lets you go free.

What’s your beef?

Grant Williams

Also, the definition of the word “delegate” is a person acting _ for _ another. Not against another.

6

I’m not really thinking of being cornered and having no choice.

Let’s say somebody steals your car. Instead of calling the cops, you decide to figure out yourself who did it (or maybe hire a PI). You capture the person, take the car back, and imprison him in your basement for a year. Assuming that you use the same standards of evidence that the courts would have and impose a similar punishment, is there anything in principle wrong with doing this? I don’t see it, yet according to Rand this would be wrong because you MUST (her word) delegate your rights to government.

(This assumes that the car thief could appeal to the government if he thought his 'trial" or punishment was unfair.)

Grant, I don’t understand your comment on the definition of “delegate.” Also, are you the same Grant Williams who is YoungWilliams on NASIOC?

Mike Wevrick

7

(This assumes that the car thief could appeal to the government if he thought his 'trial" or punishment was unfair.)

That assumption undermines your whole argument.

If vigilante justice were the only justice, what government would that person have to appeal to?

I understand that there is, in practice, no difference between the government rightly imprisoning someone for stealing your car and you rightly imprisoning someone for stealing your car. But that’s not the point.

You have a right to hire a private investigator, you have a right to forcibly take the car back (or at least you should). The only thing you don’t have a right to do is imprison that person, just like you don’t have a right to kill him, after you’ve retrieved your property (You should have a right to detain him until the police show up, but there’s a difference between detention and imprisonment). You should have a right to use [deadly] force to stop him from stealing from you since, at that moment, you have no way of knowing if you will ever see him or your car again. That person is only supposed to be imprisoned after he is seen by an impartial 3rd party and convicted of the crime. I use the word “impartial” not to say that either party is incapable of being objective about the issue, but because an impartial party is necessary in order to avoid having the accused “appeal(ing) to the government if he thought his ‘trial’ or punishment was unfair” later on. He would most likely do this since he’s a criminal, and criminals are dishonest.

Why would you want to bother with imprisoning someone yourself when the government will do it for you anyways? As far as whether or not you have a problem with this because you see the establishment of a government as you being forced to pay for something that you don’t need, is suggest you read my post in the thread “Can Objectivists Pay Taxes?”.

Besides, the government, being the representative of everyone, has a vested interest in making sure that the criminal is properly dealt with since he has proven himself to be a threat to not just you, but to everyone.

As far as my insertion of the definition of the word “delegate”, it was in response to this:

Interestingly, that is that exact situation we are in now. Objectivists claim that force should not be initiated against them, but the government/gang disagrees. As a practical matter, the law is determined by whoever is in power, not by some rational robot.

What is a rational robot? Aren’t robots created by humans? If so, doesn’t that mean that at least one human has to be rational first? Why is the result different when applying rational thought to the creation of a government than when applying it to the creation of a robot? So why do you assume that whoever is in charge of enforcing laws is going to act any more irrationally than whoever is in the driver’s seat of

THE RATIONAL ROBOT!®

Grant Williams

P.S.: I’m not YoungWilliams from NASIOC.

8

I’m not saying that vigilante justice should be the only justice, just that people should be able to use it if they want to (since it is their right to begin with, or they would not be able to delegate it to government). Since most people would want to delegate their rights, government would still exist. I agree I would not want to imprison someone myself; the question is whether I would have a right to do so.

I’m trying to figure out whether Rand is right that I must delegate my rights, or whether some sort of hybrid system would be OK (at least in principle, leaving aside the impracticalities of running one’s own prison).

Aside:

Given the squabbles and schisms within the Objectivist movement now, I wonder what would happen if we had an Objectivist-dominated society. We would all agree on laws about obvious things like robbery, but would there be endless fighting over minor details? How would such issues be resolved?

9

I am curious why my questions and requests were ignored.

10

I did read and consider your questions. The example I gave was intended partly to answer them and to clarify my position. What did I not address?

11

No, Rand doesn’t think vigilante justice is permissible under a system of objective law. The primary reason for this, I think, is people are fallible. They can have honest disagreements. (Most clearly, in cases where a contract is unclear.) So if people were to take the law into their own hands, you could have situations of escalating retaliations. If I think somebody violated a contract, I might go and try to recoup the money by force. But say they think they fulfilled the contract. Then, from their point of view, my action is theft. They then grab me and imprison me. My friends see this and, being convinced as I was that the contract had been violated, take this to be a kidnapping and come running to my rescue, guns blazing.

The point is not that the government is any less fallible than individuals. The point is that, except in cases where immediate self-defense is needed, an objective and final mediator becomes necessary. One of the virtues of a legal system is that its rulings are absolutes: they can be challenged, but until they’re overturned through due process, they’re final. It can screw up, but that problem isn’t solved through vigilante justice… and when it does, the results are much less harmful.

Vigilante justice amounts to anarchy. There are good reasons for rejecting it: the government can be a value, not only because of its processes but precisely because it IS a monopoly on the legal use of force.

12

I did read and consider your questions. The example I gave was intended partly to answer them and to clarify my position. What did I not address?

I asked how a government would respond to your force against one of its delegators of force (in this instance, the man whom you believe stole your car). I asked how this response would differ if you were still delegating your right to self-defense. IF it would differ, WHY would it differ? Is the govt NOT the defender of the man you are holding by force against his will? I asked what actions could this man’s agent NOT take on HIS behalf which it COULD take if you WERE delegating self-defense?

THESE were the points I wanted addressed and which you ignored. And I wanted you to address them because your position is myopic. It *only* considers YOUR actions. It ignores the rights and actions of anyone else involved in your example. By ignoring these questions and requests, you simply continued with your myopia.

Consider the whole equation and you might find the answer to your question.

13

RadCap, I thought I had answered your questions at least implicitly with this:

(This assumes that the car thief could appeal to the government if he thought his 'trial" or punishment was unfair.)

The thief would still be able to appeal to government if he thought I was violating his rights. The government would carry out some sort of investigation, and either decide that my punishment of the thief was acceptable, or that I was not justified and he must be freed.

Let’s look at it another way: a police officer is an agent of government and thus in Rand’s theory has a right to use force that the average citizen does not. Yet a police officer may make an error in judgement or exceed his authority, in which case his superiors or a judge will rule that his conduct was not acceptable. For example, he may arrest someone based on what a court later decides to be inadequate evidence. Why can we not all be essentially police officers (if we want to be), with the same proviso that our actions will be subject to scrutiny and correction by higher levels of government?

matt, I am quite familiar with Rand’s argument, and I don’t think what I am suggesting would lead to anarchy.

14

No - you still are not getting my point. You believe someone stole from you. You "capture’ this person - ie use force against him. At THAT point in time, what would the agent of such an individual do? Would it simply let you do with the person whatever you choose? Or would it seek to prevent the force? And how would it be different if you were a ‘delegator’ of force?

As to the rest of your post, you make some errors. You say:

“a police officer is an agent of government and thus in Rand’s theory has a right to use force that the average citizen does not”

  1. A police officer is an agent of the citizen (as is any govt official). He is not an agent (ie serving) of the government.

  2. Any agent of one’s self-defense has PERMISSION to use force - permission granted to him by those who delegate that defensive force. It is THEY who have the RIGHT. As such, the agent does NOT possess any RIGHT beyond those possessed by the ‘average citizen’.

“Why can we not all be essentially police officers (if we want to be)”

We can be. Have you never heard of a ‘citizen’s arrest’? People defend themselves and others every day in this country.

“with the same proviso that our actions will be subject to scrutiny and correction by higher levels of government?”

Our use of self defense IS currently subject to scrutiny and correction by government (not ‘higher levels’ because you are not a part OF the govt). And if IT determines we have acted against what IT determines is proper, it acts accordingly.

Of course, if you are subject to scrutiny and correction by government, then you are still under GOVT jurisdiction. You are still delegating your right to self-defense. You are still subjecting yourself to the judgement of an agent. This was pointed out to you quite a while back. You simply are not describing a situation which represents YOUR stated premise - a situation in which an individual does NOT recognize a govt’s authority and instead acts SOLELY according to his own juudgment REGARDLESS of what the agents of other’s self-defense say or do.

To clear up this persistant confusion on your part, perhaps you should try to explain the difference you imagine exists between a proper govt, which is the agent of your self-defense, and a govt which is NOT your agent but STILL has authority to scrutinize and correct your actions. One of the things you need to answer when making such a comparison is WHERE this second form of govt GETS its authority TO judge your actions and force you to conform to ITS determinations IF you have NOT delegated authority TO it.

I think you will find the answer enlightening.

15

Godless Capitalist,

RadCap already pointed out citizen’s arrests, so I’ll leave that point aside. Here’s one thing, though. When a police officer makes an arrest, he has a particular process he has to go through. Aside from the evidence-collecting part, he’s also required to go through specific processes afterward. He has to file a report; he has to follow up the arrest with a charge within a specific period of time, after which the person will be put into the judiciary system in accordance with due process.

Would the hypothetical victim you describe be required to follow through with all of this? Would he have to open his basement, or wherever he was keeping the perpetrator, for inspection by government officials? You say he’d be “subject to scrutiny and correction by higher levels of government.” Would he be required to invite such scrutiny, to follow *every* requirement which a police officer would have to follow?

16

You simply are not describing a situation which represents YOUR stated premise - a situation in which an individual does NOT recognize a govt’s authority and instead acts SOLELY according to his own juudgment REGARDLESS of what the agents of other’s self-defense say or do

Radcap, I apologize for imprecise wording but I don’t think that really changes my meaning.

You are not describing my premise correctly. What I actually said was:

“I don’t see why someone could not decide to keep that power for themselves. If such a person used that power arbitrarily they could still be arrested and punished just as anyone else could be.”

I assumed right from the beginning that there would still be a government that had the ultimate authority. The idea is that I would not delegate my rights. However, other people would delegate their rights to government, so government would have the right to use force against me to protect the rights of those others, if necessary. I don’t see any conflict there. The conflict only comes if I am using a different standard of rights, in which case I would be treated as a criminal. (An example in today’s society would be someone who kills doctors that perform abortions. They believe that what they are doing is right, but since according to the prevailing laws it isn’t, they are arrested and tried as murderers.)

Matt, yes, a person carrying out justice himself would have to follow the same rules as the police/courts and be open to scrutiny by government officials. His actions could not be arbitrary in the sense of just doing whatever he wanted to.

By the way, nobody answered this question:

“Let me ask also whether Objectivists think they have the right to violate laws that they think are irrational. If so (and I think the answer is “yes”) how is that different from someone in an Objectivist society deciding to break laws they don’t agree with?”

17

You didn’t answer the all important question: where a govt gets authority over you (which you EXPLICITLY grant in your examples) IF you are NOT delegating your right to self-defense.

You further say:

“However, other people would delegate their rights to government, so government would have the right to use force against me to protect the rights of those others, if necessary.”

This is quite true. And that agent sets the standards by which those rights are said to be violated. If one of its citizens do not face due process before its courts, his rights are being violated. If a citizen is held against his will, his rights are being violated.

You see, for the delegating citizens, its agent possesses a monopoly on the use of force. It does not recognize the NON-delegator’s use of force as valid. As such, your use of force is a violation of that citizen according to the agent. And you will therefore be treated accordingly.

Furthermore, you claim I mischaracterized your argument. You say you WOULD be acting in accord with the standards of the govt - ie you would be respecting all the laws, etc.. You would simply be carrying them all out yourself. Seems like delegation to me (because even if you disagree with a law, according to your example you would still enforce the dictates of the govt to which you do NOT delegate your rights and thus are NOT delegating your judgment of what does and does NOT constitute your self-defense). In other words, you CLAIM you are not delegating your right of self-defense, when, in fact, you ARE.

Put simply, your question is NOT what you purport it to be.

All in all, your question is not about the refusal to delegate the right of self-defense. You DO that by recognizing a govt’s final authority over your self-defensive actions. No - your question is - AFTER delegating your right to self defense, why can’t you be a police officer? The answer is: you can. There are such things as citizen arrest, etc., as I indicated above. Or you could join the police force and recieve training designed to protect individuals from the violation of their rights (both by others and by yourself).

Of course, each of these would place limitations upon the actions you can take. And the reason for such limitations is to better protect the rights of an individual - ie to better guarentee the objectivity of the use of force. Your example of some police officers violating rights (purposefully or inadvertantly) only goes to show how important it is to delegate rights. Such men are trained constantly in means and methods of properly protecting rights (as recognized by govt). Even with all that training, some still violate the rights of others. Those without such training would be MUCH more prone to such violations. So delegation places the protection of rights under objective control. This is true of ALL aspects of rights protection - from lawmaking, to law enforcement, to law judging. A judge who has studied the proper application of law will render better protection of an individual during his trial than Billy Bob from West Virginia (for a number of reasons, including specialized knowledge of the law and specialized reasoning skills etc). Additionally, by removing the players from their own defense, one removes any emotional or personal interest one may gain in the resolution of the case. So delegation places the protection of rights under objective control. etc etc

Thus, the problem with your question is that it is malformed. It purports to be one thing, but is in fact another. And that other is easily answered, as seen above.

18

“I don’t see why someone could not decide to keep that power for themselves. If such a person used that power arbitrarily they could still be arrested and punished just as anyone else could be.”

In the name of self-defense, when the government forces their way in your basement to make sure that you’re being just, you better treat them just like you’re treating the criminal.

The right to self-defense is not a context-less license to defend yourself against anyone for whatever reason. You do not have the right to defend yourself against charges of murder when you know you are guilty because you do not have the right to lie (or shoot your way out of the court room) to escape justice.

Nor is the right to self-defense a right to attack someone else who has wronged you. When a person has wronged someone and then left them alone, extenuating circumstances aside, that person has demostrated that he is no longer interested in his victim. However, he has demonstrated that he is capable of commiting such a wrong. He then becomes a threat to society at large. That’s why the police should be given the exclusive legal ability to initiate physical force to dispense justice. This initiation is done not because the cut the victim suffered is still bleeding and that arresting the cutter will magically heal it; but because that person presents a clear and present danger to everyone.

Basically what you’re asking is: “What difference does it make who is the final arbitrator (me or the gov’t) between me and the criminal so long as the government is there to be the final arbitrator between me and the criminal?”

If there is no difference, then why the condition? Ayn Rand says “for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement.”

Do you exist for the sole purpose of righting wrongs against you? Will you cancel a month-long business trip to give the guy locked in your basement a government-mandated speedy trial like the other guy locked in your basement had? If you cancel it, you’ve delegated your right to use physical force.

Have you spent years defining what constitutes a wrong against you? Will you alter it just before the trial because you realize that the government inspectors now won’t consider a specific procedure of yours permissable? If you alter it, you’ve delegated your right to use physical force.

This conversation is becoming absurd.

Grant Williams

19

"That’s why the police should be given the exclusive legal ability to initiate physical force to dispense justice. "

The police do not properly have the right to initiate force. No one has such a right.

20

"That’s why the police should be given the exclusive legal ability to initiate physical force to dispense justice. "

The police do not properly have the right to initiate force.  No one has such a right.

Perhaps he meant that the police have the right to use force “to retaliate” against the violator.