Perhaps he meant that the police have the right to use force “to retaliate” against the violator.
Duh.
Thanks for saving the context from the rationalist Tom 
Grant Williams
Context doesnt change the fact that initiation of force is not something ANYONE has a right to - yet that is EXPLICITLY what you claimed. If you meant something else, you should have stated so. The fact is, initiation and retaliation are not the same, nor even close to the same. They are opposites. As such, it was an ERROR on your part to use one term if you really meant another. Acknowledging your error would have been the appropriate response. Engaging in name calling in an attempt to shift blame doesn’t change the fact that it was YOUR error in making the claim. It just means you add one logical fallacy on top of another.
Please don’t do that again.
I hereby withdraw from this Dumbest of All Conversations.
(Actually, that title goes to one I had many years ago, for six hours, about which rearrangement of body parts would be most amusing. The winner: if nipples were replaced with noses. Picture it. Finally, those high school girls would have a use for all that kleenex!)
(C’mon, you know we needed some comedic relief.)
Radcap,
I would retaliate against your last post, but I wouldn’t want to initiate a reply.
Grant Williams
Grant,
You made a significant error in your post, and when RadCap corrected it, the appropriate, objective response would have been to thank him for doing so (even if you didn’t really mean what you wrote) rather than attacking him as a “rationalist.” How exactly does his (simple, accurate, and justified) correction of your mistake make him a “rationalist” again?
This conversation is becoming absurd.
I didn’t make a mistake. This is exactly what I said:
That’s why the police should be given the exclusive legal ability to initiate physical force to dispense justice.
The definition of the word “initiate”, according to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary is " to cause or facilitate the beginning of : set going"
Retaliatitory action/the enforcement of law/the pursuit of justice doesn’t just automatically happen. Some police officer has to get out of bed, get dressed, and go use force to arrest the criminal. That is the initiaion of physical force. Yes, it is the initiation of retaliatory physical force, but it is still the initiation of physical force. The police officer is facilitating the beginning of retaliatory physical force. That was the context. That’s it. Nothing else.
What’s so hard to understand?
Grant Williams
P.S.: Instead of observing what I actually wrote and forming his opinion of what I actually wrote based upon whether or not it’s true and makes sense, Radcap simply selected pieces of what I wrote and compared them to Ayn Rand’s broad generalizations to see if they matched. He completely ignored the definitions of the words that I used, as well as the relationships that I created between my words when I arranged them.
It is ironic that Grants resorts to common usage of the term instead of the contextual usage of the term (ie the context of RIGHTS to which he explicitly links the term) in a complaint ABOUT straying from context.
In a discussion of rights and the use of force, there are only TWO alternatives open to man - the INITIATION of force and the RESPONSE to force (termed “retaliation”). In other words, the only DIFFERENCE is in the ORDER of force. And that *order* REFERS to WHICH PERSON engages in force FIRST. Put simply, it refers to a RELATIONSHIP. However, when the error in his ordering was pointed out to him, Grants insists he was NOT referencing a relationship between individuals at all. Instead, he EXPLICITLY claims his reference is one of state-change - ie the change of state between non-action to action (because action - ANY action, including responsive action - requires a “begining” and THAT is what he now claims was the contextual reference). This means he is claiming to be speaking of the metaphysical (state-change), NOT the ethical (human relational). Or, more succinctly, in trying to avoid admission of error, he is now trying to place his argument OUTSIDE the context he himself framed with his original words.
Of course, his claim is total hogwash. Grants was NOT speaking of the metaphysical fact that an action must have a beginning - must be “started”. His context was EXPLICITLY that of the ORDER of force. He stated:
“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.”
I’ll parse the ideas presented here sentence by sentence:
-
The right to retaliatory force is not the right to retaliate with force against someone who has initiated force against you.
-
Once the initiation of force has ceased, the initiator “demonstrates” he is no longer “interested” in initiating force against that specific individual.
-
By initiating force, the individual “demonstrates” he is “capable” of initiating force - ie has the potential to initiate force in the future.
-
By demonstrating the “capability” to initiate force, he is a “threat” to the collective.
-
Because of his *potential* for future initiations of force, the govt should INITIATE force against this individual.
This is obviously collectivist drivel (which is why I didn’t bother addressing the whole specious argument to begin with - and why I STILL ignore some of the stupider assertions above - it simply isn’t worth my time). Grants ‘argument’ explicitly REJECTS a RESPONSE to force because of an ACTUAL initiation of force against an individual, and instead demands initiation of force because of a POTENTIAL use of force against the group in the possible future. In other words, the CONTEXT of his discussion IS the *order* in which force is used in a given instance. It has just been SWITCHED from:
RE-action based on specific ACTUAL action against an individual
- to -
action based on NON-specific fear of POTENTIAL action against the collective
or, put simply it switches from:
retaliation because of initiation
- to -
initiation because of fear of initiation
So you see, GRANTS context (no matter HOW mistaken) IS the order in which force is used. It IS the realm of the ETHICAL, not the metaphysical, as he now claims. And it is HE who has left the context he originally established. *I* on the other, stayed within that context and corrected his error.
All in all, therefore, Grants has done two things:
He has demonstrated a clear lack of understanding about rights, force, and justice (thereby demonstrating a DESPERATE need to grasp the very topic he considers “absurd”).
and
He has demonstrated the outrageous and intellectually dishonest lengths he will go to in order to avoid admitting an error. (“initiating retaliation” indeed - LMAO!)
Especially because of the last, I, for one, have no further use in dealing with the likes of him.
Wow; you guys are really good at making mountains out of molehills. 
Anyway, back to the main issue …
RadCap, thanks for your answer. When I started this thread, I did not have a fully worked out answer to my question, or I would have posted it. My whole purpose was to get responses to help me understand the issues, and I thank all of you for helping me do that.
What I am really stuck on now is the idea that government must have a monopoly on the use of force. Rand says that government should be an “impersonal robot.” She does not mean that literally of course, and the reality is that government is just human beings. Why should some people have more rights/powers than others? They get those powers only by delegation, which means that the original delegator should have the right to keep them if s/he chooses.
I agree that it is not practical for everyone to be their own police officer and jailer, but as a matter of principle I still don’t understand why they could not be.
Anyway, we are going in circles so unless somebody has something new we may as well drop it …
Are you insane?
If you don’t pay your credit card bills police will come and arrest you and/or take your stuff. By force if necessary. That’s the initiation of physical force. You don’t have to do anything to make that happen. That’s the initiation of physical force for the purpose of dispensing justice. Yes, by not paying your bills you have initiated a situation where the police are forced to respond with physical force in order to dispense justice. But that’s what I said. Remember “That’s why the police should be given the exclusive legal ability to initiate physical force to dispense justice.”
I attempted to switch the context from ethical to metaphysical? I don’t know what you’re talking about. If anything it was the other way around. All I did was to make an assertion that delegation was the morally preferable choice. In the rest of the paragraph that you quoted, I went on to explain the metaphysical nature of criminal behavior, and how police react to specific types of criminal behavior. These were the facts for why the police reacting, instead of the victim, is better.
In a discussion of rights and the use of force, there are only TWO alternatives open to man - the INITIATION of force and the RESPONSE to force (termed “retaliation”). In other words, the only DIFFERENCE is in the ORDER of force. And that *order* REFERS to WHICH PERSON engages in force FIRST. Put simply, it refers to a RELATIONSHIP. However, when the error in his ordering was pointed out to him, Grants insists he was NOT referencing a relationship between individuals at all. Instead, he EXPLICITLY claims his reference is one of state-change - ie the change of state between non-action to action (because action - ANY action, including responsive action - requires a “begining” and THAT is what he now claims was the contextual reference). This means he is claiming to be speaking of the metaphysical (state-change), NOT the ethical (human relational). Or, more succinctly, in trying to avoid admission of error, he is now trying to place his argument OUTSIDE the context he himself framed with his original words.
Of course, his claim is total hogwash. Grants was NOT speaking of the metaphysical fact that an action must have a beginning - must be “started”. His context was EXPLICITLY that of the ORDER of force.
Yeah, I took care of all of that with the words “…to dispense justice” at the end of my sentence.
Also I don’t know where you got the idea that I was a collectivist out of all this.
I didn’t explicitly reject a response to physical force motivated by an actual use of force by a criminal. After agreeing with Godless Capitalist that there is no difference, in practice, between a citizen arresting someone and a cop arresting someone, I went on to demonstrate an added, superior benefit of delegation (the protection of society at large). This was to defend Ayn Rand’s assertion that a rational, moral individual must choose the most beneficial choice (delegation) in order to rightly be called moral and rational. I can’t think of any other reason why it’s preferable nor why she would advocate such a thing.
Obviously physical force should not be initiated by the police against someone who they know has never wronged anyone else. Remember, that’s why I included the words “…to dispense justice.”
Grant Williams
Grant,
RadCap is right. Any use of force is an “initiation” of force, by your definition of the term–thereby removing any meaning from that term in this context. After all, even the use of force by someone directly in self-defense must be “initiated” by that person.
So, in the context of the use of physical force, the only meaningful usage of the term “initiation” is to denote the initiation of the whole chain of events in which physical force is used. Thus, it is improper to describe the retaliatory use of force as an “initiation.”
That said, I agree with Godless Capitalist that mountains are being made out of molehills. RadCap has given a reasoned argument, and your accusations of him rationalistically applying some floating principles is therefore groundless–especially in light of the way you rationalistically applied a dictionary definition of the term “initiation” out of context. In other words, you should simply apologize to RadCap and drop the issue instead of continuing to escalate it.
I suggest you drop the confrontational attitude. (And please don’t say that RadCap “initiated” the confrontation with his initial correction…that was hardly a personal attack, and it was justified. If you can’t take constructive criticism of your ideas or the clarity of your writing, then perhaps this forum is not the best place for you.) However, I generally don’t have a problem with you, and I hope you can simply admit your error and move on and continue discussing ideas here. After all, isn’t the whole point of such discussion to improve our ideas?
I don’t know what context you’re talking about Ashryan, but the context of this discussion, indeed the topic of this thread, is the question “Should the government be given the exclusive right to use relatiatory force for the purpose of dispensing justice or should I reserve that for myself?”
I didn’t just say “the police should have the right to initiate physical force”. I said “the police should have the right to initiate physical force to dispense justice”
What is the dispension of justice? The correcting of injustice. What is an injustice? The initial initiation of physical force.
Given that, of course I was talking about the initiation of relatiatory physical force.
Grant Williams
Ash
Grants has demonstrated a consistant irreverence throughout his postings on the board (sometimes harmless, sometimes not). Combined with his stubborn refusal to admit error, along with his continued evasion of facts and outright blanking out of statements and arguments, I think you are simply wasting your time dealing with him - both in general and in this case specifically. If you want to deal with him in other threads, that is your decision. In this thread, however, Grants has demonstrated his inability to deal with the subject in an intellectually honest manner. As such, continuing the conversation with him becomes an irrational pursuit.
What I am really stuck on now is the idea that government must have a monopoly on the use of force. Rand says that government should be an “impersonal robot.” She does not mean that literally of course, and the reality is that government is just human beings. Why should some people have more rights/powers than others? They get those powers only by delegation, which means that the original delegator should have the right to keep them if s/he chooses.
I agree that it is not practical for everyone to be their own police officer and jailer, but as a matter of principle I still don’t understand why they could not be.
Anyway, we are going in circles so unless somebody has something new we may as well drop it …
You say you are stuck on why a proper govt must have a monopoly on the use of force. AR answers this herself - saying basically that if a monopoly doesn’t exist, one is left with a COMPETITION in the use of force. She describes clearly the anti-man results which derive from from such a competition.
As to your question why should some people have more rights/powers than others, it has already been explained that no one has more or less rights than another. Individuals simply delegate their rights in order to better protect themselves. That is not an addition or subtraction of “power” (an undefined term if there ever was one). It is simply a division of labor which benefits individuals in a way they never could on their own.
Also, as has already been explained, the delegator does not ‘give up’ his rights. He indeed ‘keeps’ his right to self defense. He cannot do otherwise, because rights are indivisible.
Finally, you say it is not “practical” for each individual to be their own police officer and jailer. It is more than impractical, for all the reasons (and more) already explained.
Ash
Grants has demonstrated a consistant irreverence throughout his postings on the board (sometimes harmless, sometimes not). Combined with his stubborn refusal to admit error, along with his continued evasion of facts and outright blanking out of statements and arguments, I think you are simply wasting your time dealing with him - both in general and in this case specifically. If you want to deal with him in other threads, that is your decision. In this thread, however, Grants has demonstrated his inability to deal with the subject in an intellectually honest manner. As such, continuing the conversation with him becomes an irrational pursuit.
I guess that’s your way of saying “I’m wrong”
Grant Williams
I don’t know what context you’re talking about Ashryan, but the context of this discussion, indeed the topic of this thread, is the question “Should the government be given the exclusive right to use relatiatory force for the purpose of dispensing justice or should I reserve that for myself?”
I didn’t just say “the police should have the right to initiate physical force”. I said “the police should have the right to initiate physical force to dispense justice”
What is the dispension of justice? The correcting of injustice. What is an injustice? The initial initiation of physical force.
Given that, of course I was talking about the initiation of relatiatory physical force.
Grant Williams
RadCap,
I agree with the comments you addressed to me. My last post was intended as a warning to Grant, with some of the reasoning behind my disagreement with him included in the hopes that he would reverse his position so that we could hopefully avoid having further problems with him here in the future. However, it looks as though that will not be the case. That said, I am going to make one final attempt to address this issue with him–and it will be my last post on this issue.
Grant,
Re-read your last reply to me above. Doesn’t what you’ve written here strike you as rather convoluted? In particular, your second parapraph, the phrase “the right to initiate physical force to dispense justice” (which is a contradiction in terms, since no one has the right to initiate the use of physical force since any such initiation is an injustice), the phrase “initial initiation” (ask yourself why you are in the position of needing to use such a redundancy to justify your previous statements), and the phrase “the initiation of retaliatory physical force” (another contradiction in terms, since initiation and retaliation are mutually exclusive categories).
Given your insistence on still using the term “initiation” in the context of the use of physical force to mean simply the cause of any particular use of it (which is redundant since any person is the cause of any of his own actions when viewed from a certain perspective) rather than the cause of the original use of it in that chain of events (which is therefore the only meaningful use of the term in this context), one has to wonder whether you truly understand the important distinction that Ayn Rand is making between the initiation of force and its retaliatory use. You seem to be able to apply the distinction somewhat correctly, but your confusion of the terms does raise questions about your understanding of them. It’s either that, or the convoluted reasoning above is simply an attempt to escape having to admit that you made an error (even if it was just a simple misstatement).
All that being the case, I will ask you one more time to drop the confrontational attitude. If there are any more situations in which you start calling other board members names, and refuse to apologize when it is pointed out to you that your actions were groundless and inappropriate, you will be asked to leave the forum.
There is a difference in definition between the words “initial” and “initiate”. This is because they are two different words. These definitions existed before they were used by Ayn Rand in the context of her writings, and they exist afterwards.
“Initial” means the first event in a chain of events (eg: the unnecessary initiation of physical force). “Initiate” means to take actions to bring something into being (eg: retaliatory force). Also, I would like to define the word “context”. “Context” means the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning. Therefore, you cannot treat the dictionary defintion of a single word as it’s own context, since a single word alone has nothing surrounding it. There is no context to a defintion. That’s why it’s definitive.
When Ayn Rand rand uses the term “the initiation of physical force” these 5 words did not automatically lose their membership in the English language.
It is obvious what Ayn Rand meant by what she wrote and you and I have agreed upon that numerous times. However, unlike you, I recognize that the principle of “the initiation of physical force is at the root of all injustice” is dependent upon the juxtaposition in time of the commision of an injustice and the initiation of physical force (ie: the context). I correctly recognized this distinction in my original post, and therefore used the words “…to dispense justice” as the parts of my discourse that surround a word or passage (in this case, the word “initiate”) to throw light upon it’s meaning (ie: the type of juxtaposition I was commenting on).
Ayn Rand was correct in using the term “initiation of physical force” when indentifying what is at the root of all injustice in the context of her writings. She dealt with fundamental aspects that are present in all situations to communicate principles to her readers. This does not mean that these fundamental aspects themselves are principles. She also noted that principles, unlike rules or edicts or commands, are contextual. This means that while she recognized that the initiation of physical force is at the root of all injustice, she also recognized that injustice was not at the root of all instances of the initiation of physical force. She was not pronouncing moral condemnation upon any and all initiations of physical force. Rather, she was simply explaining the principle catalyst present in all commisions of injustice. With this observation in mind, it led her to advocate a strict control of the right to initiate physical force in the hands of the government for only specific purposes (ie: the dispension of justice). This advocation was in response to her realization that the initiation of physical force, if not for the correct reasons, would lead to crime and tyranny. If she were to ignore the actual definitions of words, and categorically believed that the initiation of physical force can only be used for the commission of injustice, then she would have been an anarchist politically and a rationalist epistemologically.
However, when I used the term “initiation of physical force” in my orignial post, I also included the words “…to dispense justice”. The logical implication of this being that an injustice (the initial/unprovoked/unnecessary use of physical force) had already been committed. One cannot dispense justice upon someone innocent of commiting an injustice; this would be the dispension of injustice.
The principle that “the initiation of physical force is at the root of all injustice” is not an edict and cannot be substituted for a thorough, rational analysis of the facts, and the relationship of those facts to one another, in a given situation (eg: the context of a discussion about who should have the right to rectify injustices; the individual or the government).
When I initiate unprovoked physical force against you, this does not automatically initiate retaliatory physical force on your behalf. You, or the government, have to choose to pursue justice. You also have the choice to lay back and accept an injustice. This is why the claim that the term “the initiation of physical force” only refers to the first in a sequence of seperate instances of physical force, justifed or not, is erroneous. This is because principles, unlike rules have to be fully understood and chosen to be followed by each and every individual independently in each and every situation he encounters. If it is one’s belief that the initiation of physical force is wrong, or that the initiation of physical force must be avenged, then that person has not understood and chosen to accept the principle that “the initiation of physical force is at the root of all evil, therefore force must be used only in opposition to evil”. Rather, that person has accepted on faith a rule by which to live. It is only through this acceptance of context-less dogma can one react automatically in the face of other relevant facts (eg: declaring someone to be wrong for initiating physical force to dispense justice or using the actual definitions of words) . This is what creates your belief that the sequence, rather than the goal of each action , is what must be considered.
Grant Williams
P.S.: What confrontational attitude? In my last post, I honestly did not know what context you were refering to (because you weren’t refering to one that had actually been used). Or is it that you just consider disagreement confrontation?
P.S.: What confrontational attitude? In my last post, I honestly did not know what context you were refering to (because you weren’t refering to one that had actually been used). Or is it that you just consider disagreement confrontation?
What confrontational attitude? Calling other people “rationalists” without backing up that claim comes to mind. I’m sure I can find other examples if you’d like to push the issue. But since your last reply was less confrontational and presented an actual argument, I will respond.
(And as far as what context I was referring to, I specified several times that it was the context of the use of physical force–which, incidentally, is the same context which you have specified several times. So your professed confusion there is baffling.)
Now then.
There is a difference in definition between the words “initial” and “initiate”. This is because they are two different words.
Indeed. But the words are related. Oh, but I guess you wouldn’t realize that since you hold that “there is no context to a defintion” and the meanings of words apparently therefore exist in a vacuum.
The question that you still have not addressed on this point is what the point is of referring to any and every use of force as an “initiation,” since, in the way you are applying the definition of that term, every use of force is an initiation of force, and to specify any use of force as being an initiation of it is therefore redundant (at best). You are also ignoring the fact (while stressing the importance of context in your own arguments, interestingly enough) that the context of a discussion is relevant to the meaning of a concept (especially since words can and usually do have more than one meaning, depending on the context in which they’re used). This is what apparently allows you to think that you can simply apply the definition of a word you got out of the dictionary and use it in any context you feel like, regardless of whether or not such a use of the word makes any sense in that context or ignores other relevant factors. You acknowledge something like this in your last post, but then you commit that error anyway. (And why you are stressing the point to us, when we’re not the ones using the dictionary definition in this way and are in fact pointing to the context of the discussion as relevant to the meaning of the concept, is really beyond me.)
Apparently, you do understand the distinction in this context between the “initial initiation” of force and its retaliatory use. Why, then, do you insist on specifying intiation in either case (rendering that concept redundant and meaningless) when using that term in that way forces you to add qualifications such as “…to dispense justice” which would actually be contained within the concepts (such as “initiation” and “retaliation”) used in the context of a discussion of the use of force?
As for all this…
When I initiate unprovoked physical force against you, this does not automatically initiate retaliatory physical force on your behalf. You, or the government, have to choose to pursue justice. You also have the choice to lay back and accept an injustice. This is why the claim that the term “the initiation of physical force” only refers to a sequence of seperate instances of physical force, justifed or not, is erroneous. This is because principles, unlike rules have to be fully understood and chosen to be followed by each and every individual independently in each and every situation he encounters. If it is one’s belief that the initiation of physical force is wrong, or that the initiation of physical force must be avenged, then that person has not understood and chosen to accept the principle that “the initiation of physical force is at the root of all evil, therefore force must be used only in opposition to evil”. Rather, that person has accepted on faith a rule by which to live. It is only through this acceptance of context-less dogma can one react automatically in the face of other relevant facts (eg: declaring someone to be wrong for initiating physical force to dispense justice or using the actual definitions of words) . This is what creates your belief that the sequence, rather than the nature of each action, is what must be considered.
…it is erroneous because it drops the context of the discussion (in light of the above considerations).
What confrontational attitude? Calling other people “rationalists” without backing up that claim comes to mind. I’m sure I can find other examples if you’d like to push the issue. But since your last reply was less confrontational and presented an actual argument, I will respond.
I did present evidence of my accusation that Radcap was being a rationalist when you asked me to. Perhaps that evidence was too rudimentary for a rationalist to understand, but it was evidence nonetheless. I apologize for not taking this fact into consideration. I did not provide evidence at the time of the accusation because I assumed that Radcap and yourself knew what a rationalist was. Forgive me.
Indeed. But the words are related. Oh, but I guess you wouldn’t realize that since you hold that “there is no context to a defintion” and the meanings of words apparently therefore exist in a vacuum.
Never did I claim that the meanings of words exist in a vaccum. I simply said that the meaning of a word, when extracted from a sentence and alone, has only it’s definition to explain what it means. Obviously, a word (and it’s definition) that was not derived from previously formulated concepts and was never utilized in a language would be meaningless. That does not imply that becase a word is utilized, it’s author can change it’s previously formulated definition. Ayn Rand does not own the word “initiation”.
Also, how are those words related? I have a few guesses. And even if one of them is correct, how is that relevant?
The question that you still have not addressed on this point is what the point is of referring to any and every use of force as an “initiation,” since, in the way you are applying the definition of that term, every use of force is an initiation of force, and to specify any use of force as being an initiation of it is therefore redundant (at best).
Every use of force is not an initiation of force. Every initiation of force is an initiation of force. I never did parse, nor did I consider parsing, the identity of an instance of the use of force into smaller units. Your observation would only be legitimate had I treated each individual movement in a fight as a seperate initiation of force. To “beat someone up” usually involves more than one movement on the part of the beater. However, it can involve just one key blow.
Whether it’s a one million punch fight or a one punch fight, it’s still a fight. It’s still a use of force. It’s still initiatied by one of the participants. This observation, because it attempts to refer to a non-existent entity (some kind of mini-fight within a fight), is worthless.
You are also ignoring the fact (while stressing the importance of context in your own arguments, interestingly enough) that the context of a discussion is relevant to the meaning of a concept (especially since words can and usually do have more than one meaning, depending on the context in which they’re used).
What is the context of this discussion? It is the question: “Is Ayn Rand’s assertion that one must delegate his right to self defense to the government correct?” It is also the question: “If so, why?” To understand these question does not require, and in fact should not rely exclusivly upon, the writings of Ayn Rand. As I said eariler, it was only in the context of the writings of Ayn Rand that one would find the statement “The initiation of physical force is at the root of all evil”. And as I said earlier, this had nothing to do with her ethical judgements, but was merely a metaphysical observation included to help the reader understand more complex ethical and political principles. Therefore, it was completely appropriate for me, since I was not quoting, paraphrasing, or even refering to one of Ayn Rand’s ideas per se (I was just using reason), to use the word “initiate” and expect it to be understood by it’s actual definition.
This is what apparently allows you to think that you can simply apply the definition of a word you got out of the dictionary and use it in any context you feel like, regardless of whether or not such a use of the word makes any sense in that context or ignores other relevant factors.
Once again, the context was not “Is the initiation of force bad?”. It was “Is the reservation by the individual of the right to use/initiate force for the purpose of dispensing justice preferable to the delegation by the individual of that right to the government?”
And why you are stressing the point to us, when we’re not the ones using the dictionary definition in this way and are in fact pointing to the context of the discussion as relevant to the meaning of the concept, is really beyond me.)
The context of the discussion was not the examination of one of Ayn Rand’s concepts for the purpose of understanding it. It was the examination of one of Ayn Rand’s concepts to determine it’s merit. This necessarily requires the use of outside resources (eg: your brain, a dictionary, etc…). We were not discussing the compatibility of one assertion by Ayn Rand with the rest of her assertions. We were discussing the compatibility of one assertion by Ayn Rand with reality.
Apparently, you do understand the distinction in this context between the “initial initiation” of force and its retaliatory use. Why, then, do you insist on specifying intiation in either case (rendering that concept redundant and meaningless) when using that term in that way forces you to add qualifications such as “…to dispense justice” which would actually be contained within the concepts (such as “initiation” and “retaliation”) used in the context of a discussion of the use of force?
To answer your question: Because the words “initial” and “initiation” are different words. They have different meanings. If I hadn’t added “…to dispense justice” my use of the term “initiate physical force” would have been unspecific and confusing to the non-rationalist reader. To the rationalist reader, qualification or no qualification, the use of the term is wrong because it conflicts with his accepted rules of thought. Perhaps I could have just said “retaliate with physical force”. Perhaps that would have been the more efficient way of communicating what I meant; and in fact said. But my linguistic inefficiency is not what you and Radcap have taken issue with.
Grant Williams
I am going to make one final attempt to address this issue with him–and it will be my last post on this issue.
Heh - what happened? 
–
Seriously, note that Grants issue is not JUST redundancy. As I said before, he claims his context is that of the metaphysical realm, not the ethical real (ie - he claims his context is the metaphysical requirement that for an action to occur it must be initiated; started; begun; etc. - as opposed to his context being the type of interaction two individuals have when using force - though he claims also to not even grasp the difference he himself is making!).
But by focusing on this context, and claiming that force requires a starting point, all he is saying is that it must begin. But where does it begin? Does it begin with the police officer driving to the scene? Does it begin when he gets out of the car? Does it begin when he yells halt and the perp keeps running? Does it begin when his muscle twitches? Does it begin when that twitch causes his arm to pull back? Does it begin when his muscle reaches the fully contracted position? Does it begin as the arm stops? Does it begin when the arm begins moving forward towards the perps jaw? Does it begin when it contacts the jaw? does it begin when the perp feels the contact? Does it begin when the perp’s face is pushed from its position BY the fist? etc etc etc?
By focusing on the COMPLETELY NON-ESSENTIAL, Grants has taken the ABSURD to new heights - all in an attempt to simply not ADMIT to a mistake. However, let us grant him his absurdity for a moment in order to demonstrate his absurdity. Force is contact with the person or property of another without that other’s consent. Thus the ACTUAL force would be the CONTACT with the person. Therefore the begining of the force would EITHER have to be the cop swinging his arm towards the perp.
What about the rest of the action AFTER that though? Grants has tried to make the case that he was focusing on ‘initiation’ - on the begining of force. In other words, he was trying to DISTINGISH one part of the act of using force (movement from non-action to action) from another part. There are ONLY two other parts are - continuation (the action itself) - and cessation (movement from action to non-action). Put simplyhis SUPPOSED focus - his reason for using the term ‘initiate’ was to describe the FIRST PART of an action as DISTINGUISHED from the other two parts? So the question becomes - to what end? WHY is it necessary to draw such a distinction? Is it even LOGICAL to draw such a distinction?
In this instance, why focus on the swing of the fist as SEPARATE and isolated from the CONTACT of the fist with the perps jaw (the act of force) and SEPARATE and isolated from the fist leaving the jaw? By dividing the action - by using the term ‘initiate’ in the way he CLAIMS he meant, he is doing JUST THAT - he is SEPARATING and ISOLATING - he is abstracting - the first part of the action from the second and final part of the action.
Of course, once initiated, it is impossible TO forgo the other parts, for once an action occurs, the other two aspects NECESSARILY occur. There is NO way to have an initiation WITHOUT a continuation or a cessation. In other words, in the context of ACTION (be it the action of force or running or any other human action) there is NO logical need nor RATIONAL purpose to distinguish between an ‘initiation of force’ and a ‘continuation of force’ and a ‘cessation of force’. (Though I have already stated the obvious IRRATIONAL purpose for claiming to focus on such a distinction). The word USE, by NECESSITY, means ALL THREE (this is why we distinguish between initiation and retaliation when it comes to force because they are the ONLY types of USE possible in the context of human interaction).
So why make a distinction which is both metaphysically impossible and does not pertain to the context of the topic? (The answer is OBVIOUS and has already been stated in previous posts).
Given these facts, when Grants used the term ‘initiate’ in the context of physical force he could have meant ONLY one of two things - that police should be permitted to ONLY initiate force, but NOT necessarily continue or stop the use of force (because, by focusing on ONLY one part of an inseparable motion, he claims that such a distinction not only exists but is IMPORTANT to the concepts under discussion, but to which he neither made mention of in the conversation, nor linked in any way to it) - or - he could have meant that the police should be able to USE force against another BEFORE that individual uses force (because, as he EXPLICITLY STATED, that person had previously ‘demonstrated’ the capacity to use force against others in the past).
I did not want to have to explain all of this. From his first denial, it SHOULD have been PAINFULLY obvious WHICH he meant. And it SHOULD have been ABSURDLY obvious why he denied it. Yet your continued discussion of this with him (even after you stated you would NOT continue the conversation) makes it at least APPEAR that his CONTINUED evasions are NOT obvious to you. It makes it appear you cannot believe someone would engage in such MASSIVE evasion WILLFULLY and thus Grants must simply be making errors in logic. Hopefully I have provided ample evidence so that his purposeful irrationality is obvious even to you.
Since your continuation of this discussion with Grants ONLY serves to give his COMPLETE evasion of reality YOUR sanction, I would respectfully ask that you NOT allow him to goad you INTO such a sanction (as he is want to try, ‘civil’ or not) - especially since you had already stated your intent to NOT continue the conversation in the first place.
Heh - what happened?
You’re right. After the post in which I made that statement, Grant’s first post attempting a serious explanation led me to (mistakenly) believe that we agreed on the actual issue here and were merely having a minor disagreement about word choice–about which disagreement I was willing to reenter into discussion with him.
However, in light of such rationalizations as this:
Every use of force is not an initiation of force. Every initiation of force is an initiation of force. I never did parse, nor did I consider parsing, the identity of an instance of the use of force into smaller units. Your observation would only be legitimate had I treated each individual movement in a fight as a seperate initiation of force. To “beat someone up” usually involves more than one movement on the part of the beater. However, it can involve just one key blow.
Whether it’s a one million punch fight or a one punch fight, it’s still a fight. It’s still a use of force. It’s still initiatied by one of the participants. This observation, because it attempts to refer to a non-existent entity (some kind of mini-fight within a fight), is worthless.
it is now painfully obvious to me that he has some serious confusions which he refuses to face, or has some other motive behind his rationalizations. And the only one I can think of is that he is simply doing all this to avoid having to admit his original mistake.
This conversation ends here.