Delegating the right of self-defence

Political Philosophy
41

Ash, I rationalized by defending the integrity of the definition of the word “fight”?

Radcap, I don’t know what you’re getting at with most of that. The only thing I can respond to is your first paragraph:

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!).

I had always been talking about the ethical realm. However, instead of just regurgitating the misconception that Ayn Rand meant “the initiation of physical force is always wrong” as an ethical judgement when she was simply observing a fact (ie: the initiation of physical force is at the root of injustice), I applied metaphysical facts (ie: the requirements for the existence of physical force, the proper reasons for using physical force, the definition of the word “initiation”) to a statement about the proper, moral role of the police. In order for them to even have a role, that would mean that there have to be certain situations/contexts in which their behavior should differ from their behavior in a different situation/context. But since the police only exist in the first place to use physical force, the only way their behavior can differ is if they use (by, as we have agreed, initiating) physical force for justice or injustice.

Also, since when are the “metaphysical realm” and the “ethical realm” different contexts? Contexts, when involving human actions, always involve both realms. A context is simply a particular set of circumstances.

All I can say to what the rest of what you said is that there is only one type of physical force that a human being can undertake. The initiated kind. There are three basic categories of motivation for a human to initiate physical force. Retaliation, accident, and everything else. There are only two types of retaliatory physical force. The just kind and the unjust kind.

The word “initiation” explains nothing about what is being initiated. Nor does it explain anything about whether it’s good or bad to initiate that thing. Nor does it explain why it’s being initiated. Nor does it explain when initiation ends and cessation begins. That’s what the rest of the sentence is for.

Even in a human-relational context (as if we’d be having this discussion if it were only one human), the either/or distinction between “initiated” and “retaliatory” physical force that you and Ashryan have been making is erroneous. The proper distinction, the one derived from the nature of reality and the definitions of the words that reflect it, is between physical force initiated for a just reason and physical force initiated for an unjust reason.

Grant Williams

42

Grant,

I said this conversation is over. But since you continue to post increasingly convoluted and bizarre arguments, such as this one:

The word “initiation” explains nothing about what is being initiated. Nor does it explain anything about whether it’s good or bad to initiate that thing. Nor does it explain why it’s being initiated. Nor does it explain when initiation ends and cessation begins. That’s what the rest of the sentence is for.

(in other words, the term is completely useless and meaningless, i.e., it adds no relevant information, the way you insist on using it in the sentence–so why do you continue to insist on using it in that way at all?) I have put your posting ability on moderator preview. You may still post, but your posts will not appear on the forum until they are approved by a moderator. In other words, if you continue to attempt to make posts like this on this topic, they simply will not be posted and I may eventually have to remove you from the board entirely. If, on the other hand, you’d like to continue to participate in rational discussions (if you can) on other topics, please feel free to do so and eventually you may earn back your full posting priveleges. If you do not wish to accept the conditions I have decided to attach to your membership on this forum, you are free to discontinue your participation voluntarily.

[edit] In case any of the rest of you board members are wondering about the reasoning behind this decision, I think RadCap summed up this situation quite accurately:

The more Grants speaks, the more he evidences an intellectual immaturity in dealing with either error or basic basic understandings of such as “context” “metaphysics” “initiation” “retaliation” and a host of other concepts fundamental to the sites purpose of fomenting philosophic discussions about objectivism.

His last post is completely bizzare. In one sentence, he claims there is ONLY one type of force: initiation - and then, two sentences later, he states there are TWO types of retaliatory force, which means there is NOT just one type of force,. There is ANOTHER type he EXPLICITLY references (and which he claims is actually TWO types itself!).

And NOW he is claiming that the distinction between “initiation” and “retaliation” (the one expounded by AR) is false (though he previously claimed AR’s version was accurate). He is claiming that it is “erroneous” to make such a distinction - a distinction he yet insists IS important to his definition of justice (because “the initiation of physical force is at the root of injustice”). In other words, his concept of justice is based upon a distinction he himself claims is in error!

This person is SO blatantly contradictory - SO blatantly irrational - I have to question whether it is appropriate to allow him to continue posting…

We do not necessarily have a problem with disagreement. What I do have a problem with is the way in which Grant insisted on pursuing this particular disagreement, and the questionable motives behind his doing so. People can make an honest mistake, but in my judgment, this situation goes beyond that. [/edit]

43

Perhaps the solution is to divide violation of rights into two phases, the process and after-the-fact. While someone is in the process of violating youyr rights, ie, by initiating force against you, you have the right to defend yourself by application of retaliatory force, the right to self-defense; and you have the right to delegate defense to the government. However, after the fact, your rights are no longer in jeopardy. I do not remember anywhere that Ayn Rand says you have a right to execute justice yourself: justice is instead delegated to the government. An individual whom justice does not consider by default rationally/ethically objective has the right to retaliatory force against initiation of force during but not after the fact, whereas government which under a rational ethical system (laissez-faire capitalism) is assumed to be objective is delegated the responsibility for justice and for retaliatory force against an initiator who overpowers the individual.

The grandpa alone in his house could perhaps shoot the burgler (he’s an NRA member), but if there were twenty burglers all at once, he’s better off calling the police. He is countering the initiation of force, acting during the violation of his rights. However, after they make off with his TV, grandpa can hire all the private detectives he wants, but he cannot initiate force against the burgler. The initiation of force was in the past; this is after the fact and he is too late. However, he can call on justice and the law (police and courts) to retrieve his property for him or to jail the burglars.

And RedCap, threat of force is also considered force the same way theat present value is related to future events. The cop driving up is conceivably as forceful as the cop making physical contact.

44

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

I think I see where Grant got confused. He’s not seeing that failure to pay your bills is an initiation of force, albeit an indirect one. Rand explains this about halfway through the essay “The Nature of Government.” So when the police come to arrest you for fraud they are not the initiators. A pretty small molehill, don’t you think?

Now back to my question. I thought of another example. Suppose somebody steals my car, I figure out who did it, and I go to his house and take it back. He tries to stop me but I knock him out and take the car back. He decides to press charges against me for assault and robbery. At your trial I prove that the car was yours, that he stole it, and that my only physical action against him was what was necessary to take the car back. Did I do anything unethical or violate the thief’s rights in any way? Should I be convicted? Keep in mind that if a police officer did exactly what I did it would be completely justified.

45

Guest, as citizens of America we give our right of the use of force to an objective party; government. In your scenario the robber was the initiator of force but there was no threat to person he was robbing, only his car so he would have no right to retaliate back, that would be the job of the government. If the person who’s car was being stolen was also in risk of losing his life or atleast in harm he would have the right to defend himself by retaliating.

46

I have explained this principle already. Creating a new example simply demonstrates you have not grasped that principle yet. I will try again.

In your example, you explicitly submit yourself to the authority of a legislative and judicial system. For the current example, you present a scenario in which you and the courts agree about the evidence etc. - ie you come to the same conclusions. However, based upon your previous examples, if there was a disagreement (ie you think the evidence proves guilt - the courts do not), you indicated you would abide by the authority of the judge. In other words, you are essentially claiming to recognize the authority of a court to judge the actions of you and the thief based on a set of laws a legislature has established. Yet, in the same breath, you seek justification to recognize that authority.

Put simply, your own premises are contradictory. You begin WITH acceptance of authority, then turn around and reject it (and you do so WHEN you are in AGREEMENT with the authority - yet you accept it when you are in DISAGREEMENT! Very odd)

To resolve this contradiction, you need to answer a question (one which HAS been asked before, but never answered in an intelligable manner):

WHY are you submitting to the authority of a court in the first place?

Once you answer that, if your question is not answered automatically, you must answer a corollary question:

IF you DO recognize the authority of a govt to judge such actions, on what basis do you SELECTIVELY abide by that authority?

47

First, sorry for the confusing wording of my example.

I would submit myself to the authority of a legislative and judicial system only if I believed that the system was run rationally and objectively as Rand proposes. (If it was not, I would not consider it legitimate.) I am not questioning the legitimacy of such a system.

What I am asking is why I cannot act in the same capacity as a police officer or even a judge if I choose to do so. As long as I follow the same rational objective rules that a police officer or judge would, I don’t see why my actions would be immoral or illegal. Again, government is just individuals like me, and those individuals are equally prone to errors of fact or judgement.

48

I would say for several reasons:

  1. Normal citizens are not trained on how to deal with dangerous situations, and there are so many laws and procedures that police have to deal with that the normal person wouldn’t know.

  2. The police and the justice department are supposed to be an objective party; more likely to make a rational decision then the average person.

  3. With no objective third party there would be no way to protect the innocent from more retaliations from the same person or friends of the person. What if you couldn’t properly take care of the person? What would stop him from attacking you again and killing you?

  4. What would you do you if you caught the guy and how would you cacth him? In an emotional state what would stop you from killing him and how would you decide the proper punishment for him?

49

First off, the post above Alex’s is mine; I forgot to sign in.

  1. That’s a legitimate practical objection, but not an ethical one. A person could still leave everything to the police, or get the needed training.

  2. True, but the average person is still capable of acting objectively and rationally.

  3. There would still be an objective third party (government) you could call on for help if needed.

  4. I would decide the proper punishment by following existing laws in the same way a court would.

The concept I am having trouble with is that gov’t must have a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. Rand justifies this by postulating that private citizens would be unable to pursue justice objectively and rationally, would just follow their whims, and therefore could not be trusted to use force in retaliation. She seems to think that getting a bunch of people together and calling them a government somehow makes their actions more objective. It seems more like collective subjectivism to me, which of course is no more valid than individual subjectivism. All I am suggesting is that the judgement about whether a person acted correctly be made after the action, rather than preemptively denying individuals their rights.

50

Actually govt CAN make for a means of more objective judgement for ALL parties involved (because a third party does not face either the clouding of rationality possible from personal emotional judgement - nor errors in judgement because of the potential for personal gain). However that was not her primary reasson. As I said (and I do not believe you have addressed) eliminating govt monopoly and replacing it with a competition in the use of force is what she railed against. Reread her work on the subject.

Finally, the questions I said you needed to answer are not eliminated by claiming you will submit yourself to a ‘rational’ govt’s laws and judgements (and since the context of this discussion is that of a “proper” govt, it was implicit in my question anyway). So whether a govt is rational or not, the questions stand. You STILL begin by accepting govt authority (‘supposed’ rational govt) but in the end ask for justification for that which you have supposedly ALREADY accepted.

So - what happens if you disagree with the judgement of the ‘rational’ govt? Do you still jail this thief yourself? Or do you turn your back on your own judgements and accept the authority of govt to which you supposedly submit?

51

I am not proposing competition in the use of force. I am proposing a system of objective laws as Rand proposes, with everyone having to follow those laws. The “competition” issue only comes up if different groups are trying to enforce diffeerent laws in the same jurisdiction. What I am suggesting is that private citizens be allowed to do the same types of things that police officers and judges do, and with the same types of corrective mechanisms that exist for police officers and judges. For example, if a police officer beats a suspect or plants evidence, or if a judge misapplies the law, the suspect can appeal to higher levels of the system for correction of the injustice.

I understand why a third party will usually be more objective, but that is purely a practical argument and does not justify the absolute monopoly on retaliatory force that Rand proposes.

What to do if you disagree with the judgement of the ‘rational’ govt is a good question. Judging from the schisms in the Objectivist movement, this might be a real problem for an Objectivist society. If the disagreement was minor and due to a legitimate difficulty in how to apply principles in a particular case, I would work within the system to try to change the laws. If I thought that the government judgement was significantly irrational, I would probably still submit to it for purely practical reasons, as we must in today’s society. But then we are no longer talking about the original situation …

52

I have continually pointed out to you - and you do NOT dispute - that you agree that it is not only “practical” but “proper” to delegate (and submit) to a govt monopoly on law MAKING and AJUDICATION. I have CONTINUALLY asked you WHY that is proper and have NOT GOTTEN ONE ANSWER about that question. You instead keep going back to the ENFORCEMENT of law and how the arguments presented are ‘merely practical’ (as opposed to what btw? - are you claiming they are NOT the MEANS of enacting a PROPER principle? If so, please state HOW they are DIVORCED from principle, as you IMPLY but never explain).

The point is, BEFORE you can say why the delegation of ENFORCEMENT is proper or improper, you must FIRST say why ANY delegation is “proper” and not just “practical”. As I have stated multiple times now, you KEEP IGNORING the fact that you accept WITHOUT apparent reason (at least one you are willing to state) the monopoly of the judicial and the legislative but DEMAND a reason for enforcement. I KEEP telling you that the answer to the first IS the answser to the second (if it is not, then you must EXPLAIN WHY the principle of delegation is proper in the first instances but NOT in the second - ie why it is proper to delegate legislative and judicial decision-making but NOT enforcement)

I don’t know how to put this more simply to you. It appears you have a mental block in understanding this which I am unable to break through.

–

(Read the rest below, but do NOT post a reply to it UNLESS you fully answer the above FIRST)

As to your claim about competition, it is INCORRECT. Competition does NOT exist ONLY if different laws are being enforced by different groups. YOU are competing with police officers in your example. And in fact, according to your principle, EVERY citizen would be competing with every OTHER citizen to enforce HIS particular understanding of the law (understanding which can be SEVERELY limited). Such a competition is NOT conducive to the DEFENSE of rights at ALL. And it relegates the ENSURANCE that force is used both in proper MANNER and in proper CIRCUMSTANCE to AFTER the force has been used ie - it leaves it to a court to determine AFTER the fact - in other words WHEN IT IS TOO LATE. The point of OBJECTIVE control is NOT just to PUNISH initiations of force but to PREVENT them as well. You keep calling the MEANS of PREVENTION ‘merely practical’. They are indeed QUITE practical. And they ARE practical (ie proper and effective) because they proceed from a PROPER (ie in accord with reality) PRINCIPLE - that of placing the use of force under OBJECTIVE control (which means PROSCRIBING who, what, when, where, how, why, in what manner, etc etc etc etc etc ad nauseum) force may be used. The average individual simply CANNOT know all of these things. It is simply impossible. It requires specialized study, training, and also requires access to the appropriate services and facilities (this is why we have numerous departments in a police squad - and why there are different branches of police agencies (local, state and federal) each with different departments. It is why we have separate divisions of the judicial as well - that of policing, of detention, etc) It is because the use of force is *properly* SO proscribed and SO delimited that ONE person CANNOT know it all. Therefore, the average citizen like yourself simply running around THINKING you are following what you BELIEVE is the law is NOT objective control of force. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to do so - and because of that, it is impossible for you to follow those OBJECTIVE dictates - which makes YOUR use of force NON-objective.

I don’t know how to make this clearer to you.

53

To be honest, I have a hard time understanding your posts, and all the capital letters don’t help. That’s part of why you are not getting the responses you want.

I believe all delegation must be voluntary, including law making and adjudication. Every individual has the right to use force in retaliation, so saying that right MUST be delegated amounts to saying it does not really exist. I believe that anyone is within their rights in using force in retaliation against someone who violates rights, whether against them or some other person. As a practical matter, it is preferable for this to be done mainly by trained police officers, but I am trying to get at the principle, which you keep ignoring. Please explain how I can have a right to use force in retaliation, but at the same time cannot use it but must give it to someone else.

Anyway, let me think about this and come back to it later …

54

“I believe all delegation must be voluntary, including law making and adjudication.”

So you have CHANGED your premises then. Because previously you were EXPLICITLY saying that submission TO a judge and laws of a govt was your CONTEXT. You SPECIFICALLY rejected the concept of ANARCHY or competing force, etc etc etc. However, if there is NO monopoly WHATSOEVER in ANY of the areas of the use of force that is EXACTLY what you are talking about then. EACH individual proceeding from what HE percieves is proper and ‘rational’ and using force to “defend” that position.

It is impossible to carry on a rational discussion when the foundation is shifting.

As it stands, your question NOW pertains the the justification/reason/principle/purpose for ANY govt.. AR had much to say on that topic. I suggest you read some of it (along with that discussion in OPAR).

55

Once again, if I had a fully worked out position I would just present it. I don’t; I am trying to work through the ideas, so my position is changing somewhat as I go along. Sorry if that bothers you.

It seems obvious that delegation must be voluntary; if it is mandatory to delegate your rights then they are not really yours to begin with. My premise was just that it was rational to submit to the authority of a government if that government was rationally run.

Also, I would really appreciate it if you would stop capitalizing so many words. I suppose you are doing it for emphasis, but it actually makes your posts harder to understand, not easier.

I will come back to the issues and answer your questions later when I have more time.

56

“I am trying to work through the ideas, so my position is changing somewhat as I go along. Sorry if that bothers you.”

It “bothers” ANYONE who seeks to be rational. Since we cannot read your mind, we cannot know what you are thinking. We can only go by what you WRITE. And up to your very last post, you were claiming NOT to believe in these things. So either you have not been intellectually honest in your argument and were caught at it - OR you realized an error - corrected it - and did NOT acknowledge you made an error (I suspect the latter). Furthermore, you did NOT indicate you had CHANGED the premises you had been preaching up til now. If YOU want to have a rational discussion YOU must DISCLOSE *any* changes you make TO your premises along the way. Otherwise you are WASTING OUR TIME - and that is DEFINITELY a “bother”.

Now - you say:

“My premise was just that it was rational to submit to the authority of a government if that government was rationally run.”

My question for you is (and has been) WHY is it rational to submit to the authority of a proper govt? Why is it NOT rational or LESS rational to have every man defend his own rights? What *end* does such submission - such delegation - serve? And why does this principle which justifies recognition/delegation of a proper judiciary and legislature NOT apply to when it comes to *enforcement*? Furthermore, HOW do you serve the above end by destroying the monopoly on force (by severing enforcement from the rest - ie by opening it up to competition)?

I suggest you re-read AR on the subject as I have previously suggested, because she has answered these questions already - and as it stands, they appear to be the source of your conflict.

57

I wasn’t aware that there were such strict rules about how I am allowed to discuss things. It really seems as if you are more interested in picking a fight and criticizing me that having a discussion. Why is that?

Anyway, if you still want to actually discuss the issue, please answer these questions:

For me to be able to delegate the right to use force in retaliation, I must have that right in the first place, correct? But if I MUST delegate that right to someone else and not use it myself, then it seems as if I did not really have that right. That seems illogical; how do you explain it?

58

My question for you is (and has been) WHY is it rational to submit to the authority of a proper govt?  Why is it NOT rational or LESS rational to have every man defend his own rights?  What *end* does such submission - such delegation - serve?  And why does this principle which justifies recognition/delegation of a proper judiciary and legislature NOT apply to when it comes to *enforcement*?  Furthermore, HOW do you serve the above end by destroying the monopoly on force (by severing enforcement from the rest - ie by opening it up to competition)?

I’m not questioning whether it’s rational to submit to the authority of a proper govt. I’m questioning how it can be compulsory rather than a voluntary choice. It seems like you are just rehashing Rand’s argument (which I have read many times), and not addressing my points.

59

Godless Capitalist,

The reason why your inquiries are particularly annoying is because of the fact that you continue to ask these questions while refusing to define the premises that these questions are based on. Furthermore, it has been revealed that your premises have been constantly changing throughout the entire discussion. How is it possible for a rational person to discuss this topic with you when they have no clue what your premises are? We can not read your mind.

My suggestion to you is this. List the premises that are resulting in this question that you have. Demonstrate that two or more of the premises are contradictory, meaning, find the source of the problem that you are having. From there, we can help to determine either where the source of your error is, which premises are wrong, etc. BUT WE CAN NOT DO THAT unless you tell us what your premises are!

Until you list the premises behind your inquiry in this way, we can not accurately answer your question in any way. I believe that this is what RadCap has been asking you to do throughout this thread. Understand that he is not trying to pick a fight with you, but that he is trying to get you to understand that in order to discuss a particular problem, one must understand the premises that are resulting in the problem first. We can not provide an answer to your question without knowing the cause of your question.

60

I’m not questioning whether it’s rational to submit to the authority of a proper govt.

Whether or not you think you are asking this question is immaterial. Apparently *I* believe the solution to your dilema resides somewhere in the answer to the question. IGNORING it does NOT help further the conversation nor serve EITHER of our ends.

One begins to wonder WHY throughout this discussion you have resisted answering ANY of the questions asked of you. Instead of FIGHTING against the things we say or ask, you might actually allow yourself to COOPERATE with us. Your combative attitude does not serve to resolve anything.

So just answer the questions.

–

As to these remarks:

I wasn’t aware that there were such strict rules about how I am allowed to discuss things.

A RATIONAL discussion requires one to be logical. Logic has VERY strict RULES. So IF, as I stated, you wish to carry on a RATIONAL discussion, you MUST follow these rules. If, on the other hand, you simply wish to carry on a conversation which is contradictory and aimless, then you may do anything you dam well please. Of course, no one here will participate because we do NOT allow such irrationality on the site.

The concept of such rules is BASIC to ANY rational discussion. It is DISINGENUOUS (at BEST) to suggest that you are unaware of them. What’s more, this is simply another example of the disturbing trend you have to attack (smear, ridicule, etc) those with whom you disagree (see your Harriman comments for further evidence). I would strongly suggest you refrain from such behavior in the future. IT is not tolerated on this site either.