Objectivist Prisons

Questions about Objectivism
1

I simply do not have enough time to read all of Ayn Rand’s works so I apologize if I ask some questions that may seem to have obvious answers. But, I’m digressing.

Ayn Rand said the duty of the state is only to provide domestic and foreign protection and provide a judicial system. An extension of the judicial system would be prisons in order to enforce the laws against coercion upon someone’s life. As I understand it, if someone chooses to kill someone they obviously do not value life therefore logically they do not value their own life and deserve to be thrown away by the gendarme, if they are to be consitent with their logic. The prison system would exist in a society of humans who respect life (Objectivists) but they would be the ones to throw a criminal away, therefore revealing a comntradiction in their own logic. How is this not contradictory? I think I am viewing this situation from an unusual angle (in the sense of consistency with a criminal’s logic) so please give me a different angle to look at it from. I might agree with you, I may disagree, I may just be playing devil’s advocate but the truth will set me free: please respond.

2

If someone chooses to kill someone they obviously do not value life therefore logically they do not value their own life.

One can value his own life without valuing every life. Personally, I don’t value all life, just some. (not even every human life, only the good kind—though I do recognize the good in people who aren’t entirely and always good, if it’s there)

The prison system would exist in a society of humans who respect life (Objectivists)

While it does not define Objectivism, respecting individual rights is part of Objectivism. So, an Objectivist will respect individual rights, not “life”.

The prison system would exist in a society of humans who respect life (Objectivists) but they would be the ones to throw a criminal away, therefore revealing a comntradiction in their own logic. How is this not contradictory?

The purpose of the concept of rights and of its implementation, is to protect good, from evil. If there was no difference between the consequence to a criminal act and to a non-criminal act, then evil would go unpunished, and good would go unprotected. The concept of rights (and government) would then be useless. (Redundant, there would be no need for it, in an anarchy the only thing that would matter is self-interest, which would cause good people to not harm those who seem good, but try to destroy those who seem evil, when they come close. In other words, individuals would not have equal, objective rights, instead the nature of a person-good, bad, mixed, a threat or not a threat- would be left up to the subjective judgment of each person or tribe/gang, who will then act on that judgment call, to the best of their ability. That would be in their self interest, becoming pacifists would make them into instant victims of evil. This does not make sense to those who deny the existence of evil, such people would think pacifism is in everyone’s best interest, but they are fools with no regard for reality.)

Having a government in place that defends everyone against immediate violence, and is also a deterrent against all violations of rights, is a way to ensure that anarchy doesn’t happen, and that living in peace with your neighbors, rather than at war with them, becomes the norm.

You should not look at a punishment as a separate act from the crime, but look at them together, as an integrated whole: then, you will see the difference between ‘a criminal act and its natural consequence, punishment by an entity acting objectively’ (evil, and the good acting to punish it) , and ‘taking someone’s freedom away’. If the punishment for a crime is objective and known ahead of time, it is not the judge who chose to send a criminal to jail, but a criminal who chose to risk jail by doing something that is not within his rights. The judge, the Police, the prison guards had no choice in the matter, they did not initiate the string of events, the criminal did.

Man made justice is the fight of good against evil.

3

ukelelemasta,

Objectivists would not “throw a criminal away.” A prison system should punish rights violators by extracting from them the greatest value they are capable of producing in order to 1) cover some or all of their capture, court and imprisonment costs; 2) reimburse their victims; and 3) rehabilitate them to enable them to be productive and self-sufficient after incarceration. Private companies could compete to devise the right combination of incentives and disincentives to achieve the maximum in value from a prison population of widely differing capacities.

Though violators of rights have forfeited all their rights, punishments would nevertheless be defined to fit the severity of the crime for the sake of all innocent persons who might be imprisoned in error.

4

I understand what you are saying. What are some books I can read to further understand this subject? I have Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness, anything you would recommend.

5

The only thing I would disagree with is the assertion that a rights violator forfeits all of their rights. The response must be reasonable. To summarily execute a thief upon conviction is not a reasonable response. Restriction of freedom and property for a period of time is, as these are what he took and used in the commission of the crime.

The term “throw a criminal away” directly implies that the criminal is broken property of society. A criminal isn’t thrown away, they are held at bay.

6

ukelelemasta,

Objectivists would not “throw a criminal away.” A prison system should punish rights violators by extracting from them the greatest value they are capable of producing in order to 1) cover some or all of their capture, court and imprisonment costs; 2) reimburse their victims; and 3) rehabilitate them to enable them to be productive and self-sufficient after incarceration. Private companies could compete to devise the right combination of incentives and disincentives to achieve the maximum in value from a prison population of widely differing capacities.

Though violators of rights have forfeited all their rights, punishments would nevertheless be defined to fit the severity of the crime for the sake of all innocent persons who might be imprisoned in error.

For the record, to the best of my knowledge nothing in this post has to do with Objectivism. If this is what you think should happen, you should say so, instead of misrepresenting Objectivism.

Ukelelemasta, “Capitalism:The Unknown Ideal” is what you should read, to understand Ayn Rand’s view of Politics.

7

I would agree. Although a criminal earning some money to cover costs and reimburse victims seems reasonable to me, not in the way described, which is as a resource to be mined or refined. This ties into my statement about the punishment needing to be reasonable. Perhaps as a series of programs which allow certain inmates to make money and pay their debts, which would then be taken into account in probation/parole proceedings. Rehabilitation is not a legitimate function of civil protection as far as I know, and I haven’t seen anything in my Objectivist reading that states such. The only conceivable situation that even seems similar to what you are describing would be a verified case of severe mental illness.

The idea that private should do this is insane. The folly of thinking any legitimate function of government being privatized is beneficial is covered pretty well in the literature. I also know of no instance where the principle of total forfeiture of rights for any infraction is espoused within Objectivism.

8

The idea that private should do this is insane. The folly of thinking any legitimate function of government being privatized is beneficial is covered pretty well in the literature. I also know of no instance where the principle of total forfeiture of rights for any infraction is espoused within Objectivism.

Of course there should be consequences to rights violations, but it does not automatically mean prisons are the best type of consequence. I do not see why prisons should not be entirely private. The government can determine what means of punishment to use out of all available private means, I would say. That could mean prisons. It could mean essentially making a convicted criminal an indentured servant to government. (I assume this was referring to private prisons?)

9

It could mean essentially making a convicted criminal an indentured servant to government

It is completely stupid to give a government an economic interest in enslaving ever greater numbers of prisoners.

10

Sorry for the typo, was typing fast. Yes, I was referring to private prisons. The concept behind private prisons seems to be competing governments. I think its a bad idea for the same reasons that government competition is. It would get out of hand fast. Giving certain classes of criminal opportunities to work doesn’t seem like a bad idea as long as its not compulsory. I would draw the line at private prisons or even any sort of contractual agreements between the government and potential employers beyond what would be needed to maintain security.

11

What % of inmates in the US would not have been prosecuted under an law system consistent with Objectivism?

(drugs, prostitution and many tax evasion cases)

Thanks.

12

What % of inmates in the US would not have been prosecuted under an law system consistent with Objectivism? (drugs, prostitution and many tax evasion cases)

About 20-25%.

13

What about a sort of penal colony. Lock criminals (who in an Oist society would have had to employ either force or fraud to end up there) up on some remote island/piece of land where the guards are there only to ensure that no one gets out before their term is up. Other than that, it is a place where there are no rules, compete and utter anarchy a real dog eat dog existence.

That would offer a stark difference to anyone contemplating crime. If you do the crime you go to a place where everyone will disrespect your rights as much as you disrespected the rights of your victims. You live by the sword, you die by the sword, or more correctly disallow rights, be disenfranchised of your own rights.

This makes the commission of any crime a decision with tangible repercussions ones that could far outweigh both the infraction and any possible reward of the criminal action. It also shows that all rights violations are essentially the same, they all come back to the right to life, and that in the end is what a criminal could sacrifice for any crime.

14

What about a sort of penal colony. Lock criminals (who in an Oist society would have had to employ either force or fraud to end up there) up on some remote island/piece of land where the guards are there only to ensure that no one gets out before their term is up. Other than that, it is a place where there are no rules, compete and utter anarchy a real dog eat dog existence.

That would offer a stark difference to anyone contemplating crime. If you do the crime you go to a place where everyone will disrespect your rights as much as you disrespected the rights of your victims. You live by the sword, you die by the sword, or more correctly disallow rights, be disenfranchised of your own rights.

This makes the commission of any crime a decision with tangible repercussions ones that could far outweigh both the infraction and any possible reward of the criminal action. It also shows that all rights violations are essentially the same, they all come back to the right to life, and that in the end is what a criminal could sacrifice for any crime.

It would probably be difficult to find a remote enough place to put them that isn’t inhospitable. It would be interesting to see how banishment for offenses would work out. I think you wouldn’t find anarchy, they would create their own systems of governance. Perhaps it would be a bit like Escape from New York or something.

15

About 20-25%.

Just an extrapolation, I’ve heard much higher percentages(80-90% I think) when you include drug related charges. So someone who steals a TV to get a heroin fix for example. Ostensibly, since drugs are pretty cheap to manufacture, if there were no laws restricting their sale the price would not be so high as to require criminality to afford them. I don’t hear about people robbing a liquor store to buy a pack of cigarettes. Though, that could certainly change with the taxes they’ve been putting on them lately. :smiley:

Certainly criminals would still be about, but without a way to make big money through illegal products, much crime lacks a reasonable payoff and organized crime would likely find it hard to exist. Drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc are bread and butter for them.

16

What about a sort of penal colony. Lock criminals (who in an Oist society would have had to employ either force or fraud to end up there) up on some remote island/piece of land where the guards are there only to ensure that no one gets out before their term is up. Other than that, it is a place where there are no rules, compete and utter anarchy a real dog eat dog existence.

Even if we for a second ignore the fact that the people who created this place are responsible for the horrific things that would happen to those they send in there, the consequences would be dire for anyone who came in contact with the sort of creatures this hellhole created, after they are released back into society.

17

Even if we for a second ignore the fact that the people who created this place are responsible for the horrific things that would happen to those they send in there, the consequences would be dire for anyone who came in contact with the sort of creatures this hellhole created, after they are released back into society.

I am not my brothers keeper. One of the stipulations of objective law is that any man can know what is illegal. Another is that the punishment for crimes be known. Well if the crime (a rights violation) had a known punishment of being exiled to this man made hell then how could you or I possibly be responsible for the known result of actions which any man would know to be a crime?

As to the rest I’ll grant you the allowance that some of these people would not be very warm and cuddly toward the society that put them in such a place (though that would be a huge evasion of the fact that they were the people responsible for sending themselves there) but that is no different than today and I dare say that an awful lot would do their damnedest to never end up in that place again.

On the other hand what if they never come back? What if a rights violation (crime) meant immediate loss of citizenship and these people were in essence deported to this place? As Adjutor pointed out they would probably end up having their own society based on some sort of pack or gang mentality. As long as we made sure they stayed inside their prison why would I care?

It’s a simple concept really. If you commit a crime (a rights violation), you loose your citizenship and are summarily deported to a place where for all practical purposes there are no rights.

18

Just an extrapolation, I’ve heard much higher percentages(80-90% I think) when you include drug related charges. So someone who steals a TV to get a heroin fix for example.

There’s only one way to find out. Maybe in fact all of the ills of society can be traced back the the fact that drugs are illegal.

19

I am not my brothers keeper. One of the stipulations of objective law is that any man can know what is illegal. Another is that the punishment for crimes be known. Well if the crime (a rights violation) had a known punishment of being exiled to this man made hell then how could you or I possibly be responsible for the known result of actions which any man would know to be a crime?

By that logic, no one is responsible fro their actions, as long as they are acting to punish a criminal and they announced it ahead of time.

In fact, we are responsible for our actions, and their consequences. Enacting justice just happens to be an action that is moral, and has a moral consequence: a “state of justice”. If you wish to decide whether your island idea would deliver justice, you need to look carefully at what its consequences are, and whether you desire them. The reason why I support the existence of prisons, in principle, is because I support what happens in them (in principle): criminals are justly punished. That’s what “taking responsibility for those consequences” means. Do you support and consider justice what happens on your island? (I’d say it’ barely possible to imagine what would happen)

20

There’s only one way to find out. Maybe in fact all of the ills of society can be traced back the the fact that drugs are illegal.

I’d doubt that seriously as drugs only became illegal approximately 100 years ago, and society had plenty of ills before that.

Of course, neither then nor now did we have an Objectivist society, so who knows what would happen if we did (and perforce, drugs also became legal again).