RadCap was kind enough to give me his definition of force.
“Contact with the person or property of another, regardless of that other’s consent.”
We are all familiar with the Objectivist principle that condemns the initiation of force. What I want to explore is how (if at all) this principle creates limitations on various forms of speech. But before doing that, we should agree on a definition of force.
RadCap, is “contact” in the above definition limited to physical contact?
Certainly it should not be limited to physical contact, if one may alter or use a peice of property without physicaly coming in contact with it, than those actions should still be considered force.
How about “The alteration and/or use of…”
If that is accurate, it is a bit more descriptive than “contact with…”
How does one alter or use property without physical contact?
he probably meant BODILY contact. But I assume the definition includes physical contact by all other means.
How does one alter or use property without physical contact?
Upon further consideration, I have decided that one may not.
RadCap, I assume your position is as follows:
An armed robber that demands your wallet has not made physical contact, but he threatens to do so. And the threat of initiating force is just as evil as the actual contact.
I agree with this. There is no such thing as the right to threaten the violation of rights. Does it not also follow that there is no such thing as the right to advocate the violation of rights?
If so, freedom of speech cannot include the right to advocate or exhort others to murder. I bring this up because this alone fully justifies Israel’s targeted assassinations, as well as the concept of preemptive war.
Just a little intellectual ammunition for the ideological part of the war.
“There is no such thing as the right to threaten the violation of rights. Does it not also follow that there is no such thing as the right to advocate the violation of rights?”
Your assertion is much too undefined to answer rationally.
I can answer your specific example, however. You are correct, there is no right to advocate or exhort others to *murder*. This is true whether you are the accomplice to a robbery - whether you are a member of a lynch mob - or whether you are Hitler.
As such, you are indeed subject to defensive actions by those seeking to protect against such threats of initiation of force.
We discussed this somewhat in another thread.
Someone who is pointing a gun at you has already initiated force. The preemptive action taken before he actually uses it to kill you doesn’t mean that you have violated the moral law against the initiation of force. Remember Miss Rand said, “Morality ends at the barrel of a gun” (that may not be an exact quote – sorry), meaning that there is no option for any discussion aimed at persuasion at this point. A gun pointed at you isn’t the same thing as someone yelling that he is going to kill you. There must be an overt act involved; in this case, the overt act occurred when he pulled out a weapon.
Israel’s targeted assassinations are against people who have already killed, it is preemptive only in that they are doing it before they kill AGAIN.
In every case, so far, the US has acted before an entity kills again. Preemption, as policy, merely discribes a change in the legal rules of engagement. (Preemption replaces the old Treaty of Westphalia rules of engagement. Google it yourself to make the comparason.) It does not mean that the US will just bomb someone willy-nilly and for no justifiable reason. States such as Iran, while they haven’t acted overtly as a state against us, has acted as a state sponser of terrorists and can justly be attacked because of it.
While speech may be a precursor to the initiation of physical force, it isn’t, of itself, force. Hate-speech laws are the foot-in-the-door to more gross examples of government censorship, which is expressly forbidden by the 1st Amendment. One may judge the validity of such laws by watching how these laws are used, and who is using them for what purpose. (I say foot-in-the-door because the precedent set by these laws have already had the effect of allowing the passage of more blatant anti-free speech laws, such as the so-called Campaign Finance Reform laws. You never, under any circumstances allow the government to open the door even a crack because they will always end up walking through it.)
“There is no such thing as the right to threaten the violation of rights. Does it not also follow that there is no such thing as the right to advocate the violation of rights?”
Your assertion is much too undefined to answer rationally.
I can answer your specific example, however. You are correct, there is no right to advocate or exhort others to *murder*. This is true whether you are the accomplice to a robbery - whether you are a member of a lynch mob - or whether you are Hitler.
RadCap, what is it about the assertion that is undefined?
In the Public Interest Monopolies thread, RadCap correctly asserted that the legislation of fair trade is synonymous with such thuggish tactics as drawing a gun. Wouldn’t irrationally-founded laws designed to cut the legs out from under an objective entrepeneur be considered force?
If you haven’t already, check out Peikoff’s article on Fact and Value. Rand considers Kant one of the most evil men in history; but, interestingly, he would not have broken any of the definitions of force presented here…
I prefer to reduce esoteric concepts to their epistemological cores when I consider them. From the Princeton WordNet lexicon, then, force is (amongst other definitions) “to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means”. Blackmail and character assassination, thus, are both means of force; no punch need ever be thrown, no gun need ever be drawn.
As for America’s involvement in Iraq, I consider it self-defense, despite being a preemptive military action. The force was initiated by Saddam. While shouting “I’m going to kill you” may not be the same as pointing a gun, saying it 19 times changes the scenario, too, esp when all the while being secretive about whether or not you are actually carrying a gun. Furthermore, he initiated force the day he decided that he could kidnap, torture, and kill at his whim. Some might consider this altruistic, it seems rather obvious to me that this action was in the United States’ own rational self-interest. Deposing a piece of sh* criminal in the process is but icing on the cake (and a means of gaining support from the Rational Public Sector -those who understand the need to destroy evil when it appears).
I reassert that, sadly, some people need a bullet in the head. (The Irrational Public Sector can euphemize this as Involuntary Enlightenment via Trepanation, if it helps them cope with reality…) Trepanning -uh, I mean… accomodating such persons is not initiating force; more likely it is a) answering force or 2) preventing it.
Rand considers Kant one of the most evil men in history; but, interestingly, he would not have broken any of the definitions of force presented here…
One need not be unlawful to be evil… Kant was evil because of the ideas which he advocated, not because of actions he took part in, nor because of any actions he encouraged.
AisA
It is incompletely defined because there is nothing in the statement to identify the difference between, say, these two examples:
Bob is in a lynch mob. Bob thinks some people should be killed for x reason. Billy meets this criteria, so Bob shouts to the man with the rope “Kill him, kill him.”
Bob is in a discussion group. Bob thinks some people should be killed for x reason. Billy (also in the discussion group) is used as an example. Billy, it is claimed, meets these criteria. So Bob says that Billy should be killed.
While advocacy of killing exists in both examples, and while the advocate of force is not the one using force, the actual threat of force itself is only present in one example. oldsalt is on the right track in his post (though I do not agree with it as it is currently worded)
MS
“Wouldn’t irrationally-founded laws designed to cut the legs out from under an objective entrepeneur be considered force?”
This is poorly worded. But I think your intent can be gleaned from it. An “irrationally-founded” law would be one which seeks to violate an individual’s rights to his life, liberty, property, etc. Since the only way such a violation can be achieved is by the initiation of force, such laws would indeed be force.
As to the definition of force, you reject the currently referenced definition. Why? Because it does not identify acts you ALREADY consider to be immoral (ie blackmail) as immoral. In other words, BECAUSE you have already made a moral judgment concerning a particular act, you are searching for some definition which will validate that moral judgment.
That is completely backwards.
I prefer to reduce esoteric concepts to their epistemological cores when I consider them.
Why not say this more simply? I am not sure that “force” is an esoteric concept, or what esoteric means in this context. I am pretty sure that I don’t know what an “epistemological core” is. So I’ll bite. What is it?
From the Princeton WordNet lexicon, then, force is
I’ve found that dictionary definitions are useless for words important to philosophy.
“to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means”. Blackmail and character assassination, thus, are both means of force; no punch need ever be thrown, no gun need ever be drawn.
It sounds like a package-deal conflating reason (“moral or intellectual means”) with force (“phsyical”).
The key thing to understand about force is that it attacks the mind. That’s why it’s force if you gesture at someone with a gun to stop, it’s force if you say “I have a gun and I will shoot you if you don’t give me your money”, it’s force if you stick a gun into someone’s face, and it’s force to shoot someone. In all cases, you have used the gun to cause the victim to act against the dictates of his own mind. You have told him that he must think contrary to what he thinks or else you will kill him (or else you have just killed him).
I think “blackmail” is also a package-deal because one definition is to threaten someone with force if he doesn’t pay money, and the other is to threaten to reveal the truth to people whom he has lied. The latter is not “force”, but rather it shows one problem with lying.
Blackmail (extortion by threat of public exposure) does seem to be a violation of the (nonexistent) right to privacy. Outside that, then, is lying an open invitation to blackmail - first come, first served -, or is there another reason to ban it (because it’s force)?
Character assassination is (according to M-W) slander (ie, false charges etc.); slander’s been covered on another thread, and the conclusion is it’s force when there is an implicit contractual agreement between the slanderer and the listener that what the slanderer says is true.
I think your intent can be gleaned
Which you did quite nicely, thanks.
In other words, BECAUSE you have already made a moral judgment concerning a particular act, you are searching for some definition which will validate that moral judgment.
I’m not too worried about this being accurate, RC. I pride myself in being cognizant of my own paradigms of thought, and in seeking to conquer them. In this case, that the definition which makes the most sense to me also happens to include blackmail, slander, et al, only reaffirms that I was on the right track all along.
I am not afraid of being wrong, mind you. As a matter of fact, I endeavor to find my incorrect ideas and ideals and squash them. That’s one of the reasons I’m here. But after considering your post, and reconsidering my stance, I do not think this is one such case.
Bearster,
If “force” were a concrete concept, likely there wouldn’t be as much debate about its definition, eh? Perhaps “reducing it to its epistemological core” could have been phrased better; RC seemed to understand what I was getting at though, so I’m not going to bother clarifying, if you don’t mind. I’m not interested in semantics.
I think “blackmail” is also a package-deal because one definition is to threaten someone with force if he doesn’t pay money, and the other is to threaten to reveal the truth to people whom he has lied.
Not always; one could threaten to blackmail a Senate-elect with revealing their rocky childhood, or a President with “proof” that he had smoked pot in college. It is not always a lie that is being revealed, it could be a matter of mere embarrassment for an honest error in one’s past. The concept of blackmail does not presume that the “blackmailee” has done anything immoral.
It’s force when there is an implicit contractual agreement between the slanderer and the listener that what the slanderer says is true.
I knew a Feldblum went to Yale who was a fan of Rand. He was convicted of drug trafficking in his sophomore year and booted. A friend of mine tells me that he returned home, where he opened up a dry-clean business as a front store for harboring a fencing ring.
i.e.
Slander need not be true (nor even provable!) to be effective.
***
Force is compelling a response from an individual by any means which they do not condone; be it legislation, internment, false implication, or hammering shoots of bleach-soaked bamboo under one’s fingernails until they admit to a crime they did not commit. Force need not even be direct upon the individual; the Italian mafia in its heyday was notorious for implying that one’s family could bear the response of one’s non-compliance, and this is also a very effective tactic; today we call it terrorism.
So I stand by my previous statements: force need not be a gun, nor even violent. It need only be a threat, real or implied, stipulatory or inevitable, of a specific response or situation.
But before doing that, we should agree on a definition of force.
In the context of human interaction, I think force means an action which causes a person(s), or his agent(s), to act against their will.
So, anyone using force would need to perform some action which results in another person, or his agent, doing something that they don’t want to do.
A mugger could point a gun at you, forcing you to stop and consider handing over your wallet.
An identity theif could steal your identity, and, through fraud, cause your banker to unknowingly hand over your money to the wrong person.
But this definition is not limited to criminal behavior. Force can also be applied in self-defense and other situations, for example situations involving children who have limited legal protection.
“As to the definition of force, you reject the currently referenced definition. Why?”
Since you reject the reason I claimed you were rejecting the currently referenced definition, then would you please explain why you do reject that definition?
Sorry if I haven’t been clear.
I reject that force requires physical contact or threat of violence.
The Federal Government may legally sieze the property or freeze the bank accounts of alleged drug dealers. This is the use of force.
That doesn’t answer my question.
Since the definition is “contact with…” saying you disagree that contact is not necessary in the definition does not explain WHY it is not necessary. In other words, when you say “I reject that force…” you are merely repeating your disagreement. You are NOT answering the question you were asked which, in this context would be “Why do you believe force is not limited to physical contact or threat thereof?”
Then you provide an example where contact or threat of contact is *supposedly* not used, but which you consider to be force.
First, the example is NOT valid, ie does not support your principle, since contact - AND threat of contact - ARE being used against the drug dealers.
But regardless, all that you have done is provide an *example* of your principle, not the REASON for your principle. An example does NOT explain WHY contact is not necessary. It does NOT provide a conceptual foundation for the definition OF force. That you provide AS such a foundation, proves the point I made earlier: that you make a moral judgment FIRST, then seek a definition which FITS that judgment AFTERWARDS.
As I said, that is BACKWARDS.
Seizing property and freezing bank accounts is the threat of force, lest the owner attempt to retreive his property or money.