Questions re: Proper role of government

Questions about Objectivism
41

The concept “criminal” makes sense only in the context of a system of laws which publicly and definitively states what a “crime” is and the procedures for judging a person to be a “criminal” are. You can substitute “assumed evil-doer” if you want, but calling a person a “criminal” doesn’t make sense when the conditions of criminality aren’t satisfied isn’t possible.

Disagree. Criminal is one who has violated individual rights. Rights are not created by a context of laws nor are they created by government procedures. Rights exist, you violate them you are a criminal.

No, I am saying that law is the means of protecting rights. I am saying that you do not have the right to use force to retrieve what you believe to be your property, that such a right has been ceded to the government.

My rational judgment is the only guide to action I need. I don’t need a jury of my peers to validate my conclusions. It’s not a matter of “wanting to believe”, it is a matter of knowing. You apear to be arguing from the point of view that the individual cannot objectively judge for himself. I’m not letting that slide for one second.

Now I doubt you actually mean that, but in that case you need to present an argument for forbiding rational individuals from acting based on their rational judgment whenever this creates the possibility of their acting erroneously. If such a claim could be proved, it would lead to a radically different politics than Objectivist politics.

The requirement that non-emergency force be fully under government control is necessary in order to protect the primary right of all men, to choose free from force – the “freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice”. Are you denying that primary right?

No. But you have set up a nice contradiction. In order to secure my right act on my own judgment free from force you will threaten me with force so I don’t act on my own rational judgment - and defer to the judgment of others instead.

I am specifically denying that there is a primary right to recover property stolen from you: any such right is logically lower than secondary, and subject to various contextual elaborations.

I am free to act in any manner that does not violate another person’s individual rights. This is not about a “right to recover property” - it is about the fact that the criminal has no right to hold my property in the first place. I’m not violating anyone’s rights by taking it back.

42

I am free to act in any manner that does not violate another person’s individual rights. This is not about a “right to recover property” - it is about the fact that the criminal has no right to hold my property in the first place. I’m not violating anyone’s rights by taking it back.

You are free to act in any manner that you, through your brute force visavis that of those around you, are capable of acting. That is a statement of fact based on the nature of reality.

Your ‘rights’ exist only in the context of 1) rational men who 2) choose to rely on an alternative standard to brute force to govern their interactions. Any time anyone hopes to legitimately agree on a non-force standard for interaction, the question of rights must appeal to objective reality - as opposed to the whims of the powerful or majority and so forth. But there must be first the decision that might is not right, and an agreement between men on the terms of this arrangement.

Your personal sense of entitlement to your right, no matter how proper and objective, means nothing to those who cannot accept your point of view and therefore accept some role for force in dealing with you.

Therefore the enforcement of rights in society very much depends on a consensus concerning the specific means of using force in retaliation against the users of force.

In anarchy, you would have an argument - but that assumes that few or none of those with whom you interact are willing to agree to a standard of non-violent interaction as an absolute. So, make sure to save some money for bodyguards, and suspect everyone with whom you deal.

43

Your ‘rights’ exist only in the context of 1) rational men who 2) choose to rely on an alternative standard to brute force to govern their interactions.

Incorrect. In that context they are respected. They exist regardless, however.

44

Incorrect. In that context they are respected. They exist regardless, however.

This idea might be the problem. [edit-sorry, posted too soon by accident]

I’ll concede the use of the word exist. I’ll replace it with ‘manifest’. Rights are manifest only when they are properly respected. My point is that the concept of rights is incomplete when applied to situations in which they are not manifest in a society of individuals. I’m trying to say that I think its improper to have a discussion about rights when you don’t address the circumstances under which they are to be properly respected.

45

I’m trying to say that I think its improper to have a discussion about rights when you don’t address the circumstances under which they are to be properly respected.

That is begging the question. To determine “the circumstances under which they are properly respected” you first have to determine what “they” are.

I have framed the issue as a very clear matter of principle in two distinct ways:

Looking at the innocent’s rights:

  1. Does an individual have a right to use force in retaliation against another individual who has initiated force against him? Yes/No

  2. Does the existence of government void an individual’s rights in any way? Yes/No

Looking at the criminal’s rights:

A. Does a criminal have a right to keep stolen property? Yes/No

B. Are any rights violated when stolen property is retrieved by the threat of force or the use of non-lethal force? Yes/No

That is all there really is to it.

46

The fact that “criminals forfeit their rights” is generally accepted.

Is it? Not by me.

47

No. But you have set up a nice contradiction.

Of course I did – I’m glad you recognized that. Resolving that apparent contradiction is the entire reason for the Objectivist position on government and the necessity for a monopoly on force.

48

That is begging the question. To determine “the circumstances under which they are properly respected” you first have to determine what “they” are.

I have framed the issue as a very clear matter of principle in two distinct ways:

Looking at the innocent’s rights:

  1. Does an individual have a right to use force in retaliation against another individual who has initiated force against him? Yes/No

  2. Does the existence of government void an individual’s rights in any way? Yes/No

Looking at the criminal’s rights:

A. Does a criminal have a right to keep stolen property? Yes/No

B. Are any rights violated when stolen property is retrieved by the threat of force or the use of non-lethal force? Yes/No

That is all there really is to it.

I don’t think that is all there really is to it. Your propositions are flawed because they have been detached from the proper context. Asking “Does an individual have a right to use force in retaliation against another individual who has initiated force against him?” the way you are asking it is like asking “Does an individual deserve to be happy?”

Context absolutely matters. I’m pressing this argument because you previously tried to argue that the objective judgment of an individual was all that mattered in terms of the use of retaliatory force in protection of rights, and that that judgment needn’t be subordinated to a government’s. That’s where you’re wrong.

An individual deserves to be happy… inasmuch as they can actually obtain happiness - yes, they would then have every right to be happy. An individual has a right to his property and person against the use of initiatory force by others… yes, that doesn’t require a government to be valid. But does an individual have a right to use force in retaliation? No, not if its illegal and against the prescription of government.

There are two alternatives: the use of force is subject to objective rules instituted by a government, or it’s a free for all. In some sense, the first is a free for all, but proper consequences and standards are established to lessen anarchy.

There is no right to the use of force. The use of force can or cannot properly be employed for the protection of rights. Depending on the context, rights inform what the most proper use of force will be. In anarchy, your individual objective judgment is a sufficient means of determining just action. When rational people interact with each other, and reasonably can institute some form of government, they ethically must. That government is what determines the proper use of force in defense of rights. This ‘government’ could be anything from a ‘Merchants’ Code of Honor’ to a constitution. The latter is more proper.

As to the use of force - there is no such pure concept as ‘retaliatory force’. It is an abstraction. There is: shooting someone in the heart with a bullet, punching someone in the face, tearing an item from someone’s arms, sneaking into someone’s house and stealing something, destroying someone’s property, and so forth. There is no blanket ‘right’ to use any or each of these tactics ‘in retaliation’.

Use of force implies automatically an action. That action may or may not be proper. Should someone be shot for robbing a bank? If it’s 1885, they have $15,000, will be untraceable once they leave town, you’re the U.S. Marshall, and all that stands between the depositors’ and their earned wealth is your bullet… Well, if your savings means eating or drinking, living or dying in a desert boomtown, then you’d say yes. If it’s just a new iPod you’re losing, then no. That’s why voting and ‘society’ and the legislative process determine the proper use of force. Otherwise, why couldn’t the thief be killed because, well darn, the Marshall is supposed to protect that money, and he’s pissed today.

Proper use of force is in proportion to the stakes for those whose rights are violated. We can’t all be running around with different standards when we can come together rationally and agree upon a common one. Objective rights are the foundation.

49

Is it? Not by me.

Interesting. In that case do you consider the use of force by policemen to be a violation of a criminal’s rights, do you consider that “due process” removes those rights so police can act without it being a rights violation or do you have some other justification as to why the use of force by government against criminals is not itself a rights violation?

Of course I did – I’m glad you recognized that. Resolving that apparent contradiction is the entire reason for the Objectivist position on government and the necessity for a monopoly on force.

I’m not sure if this is meant to be an ironic non-answer or an actual answer. Knowing you I assume the latter, but the typical Objectivist position on government versus individual retaliation (which I have been arguing against here) is exactly what creates the contradiction. So if you don’t mind expanding on how you unravel that contradiction I’d be greatful.

you previously tried to argue that the objective judgment of an individual was all that mattered in terms of the use of retaliatory force in protection of rights, and that that judgment needn’t be subordinated to a government’s. That’s where you’re wrong.

I absolutely did not argue that. I stated “an individual is capable of objective judgment all by himself”. If you disagree, lay out your case. If you agree, you admit you are proposing the government use force against individuals that are acting based on objective judgment as well as the ones who are not.

There are two alternatives: the use of force is subject to objective rules instituted by a government, or it’s a free for all. In some sense, the first is a free for all, but proper consequences and standards are established to lessen anarchy.

This is what is called “false dichotomy”.

There is no right to the use of force.

Not as such. There is a right to do anything that does not violate another’s individual rights. The question is, therefore, does using force against a criminal in retaliation for the crime he committed violate individual rights?

You are dodging this. Answer it.

Proper use of force is in proportion to the stakes for those whose rights are violated.

Proportionality is not a given. You are again trying to establish a relationship between what can be done against a criminal wihtout violating his rights while discarding the whole discussion about what rights a criminal retains and forfeits in committing his crime (as seen above).

We can’t all be running around with different standards when we can come together rationally and agree upon a common one. Objective rights are the foundation.

I quite agree. This is why I’m not advocating “competing governments”, “private enforcement agencies” or any other sort of anarchistic or libertarian claptrap that implies the possibility of conflicting rules. I’m advocating that it is sufficient and proper that the government be the ultimate arbiter on all matters regarding force. That respecting the fact that all rights stem from the individual requires recognizing that the individual can exercise them objectively or non-objectively just as he can choose to act rationally or not, criminally or not.

50

Interesting. In that case do you consider the use of force by policemen to be a violation of a criminal’s rights, do you consider that “due process” removes those rights so police can act without it being a rights violation or do you have some other justification as to why the use of force by government against criminals is not itself a rights violation?

Hmmm, a multiple choice one. I always find myself going with “Other”, on these. Criminals are subject to the same justice we all are subject to. Justice, if properly applied, is not a violation of rights as Ayn Rand defined them.

51

Hmmm, a multiple choice one. I always find myself going with “Other”, on these. Criminals are subject to the same justice we all are subject to. Justice, if properly applied, is not a violation of rights as Ayn Rand defined them.

So, criminals have rights just like any other person. But it is OK to point a gun at them or take them down with a taser - if you have a badge. What being a government employee acting according to due process does to make it OK to violate a person’s rights (since we are bunching criminals and non criminals and stating they have identical rights) is not in your answer.

If a criminal has full rights, no one can rightfully use force against him. There is really no wiggle room here. I’m really trying to understand how you reconcile this with reataliatory force but you are not being very forthcoming with your arguments. Which is fine, of course, if you don’t want to discuss it.

52

If a criminal has full rights, no one can rightfully use force against him. There is really no wiggle room here.

Simply affirming that there is no wiggle room for criminal justice won’t do, you have to tell me specifically how an objective justice system would conflict with individual rights, as Ayn Rand defined them (in other words, how such a system would prevent someone from acting in their rational self interest).

As it is now, I see no such conflict. Only if retaliatory force was up to individuals’ judgement would there be an inherent contradiction between rights and justice (since there wouldn’t even be a reliable way for me to know what those things others consider crimes are, exactly, I would clearly not be free to act in my rational self interest, without fear of reprisal).

But no one has the right to violate other people’s rights, so an objective reaction, as prescribed by properly written laws, is perfectly justified when someone does. (in other words, an objective system of laws, applied by impartial judges would not inherently conflict with individual rights; while not perfect, it would not, as a general rule, prevent me from acting in my rational self interest. on the rare occasion a law or a superior court decision was wrong, at least I would have the chance to look at the laws, and at the precedents set in similar cases in the state or the whole country, and avoid crossing it, while still safely performing almost all other actions I have the right to perform)

53

I’m not sure if this is meant to be an ironic non-answer or an actual answer. Knowing you I assume the latter, but the typical Objectivist position on government versus individual retaliation (which I have been arguing against here) is exactly what creates the contradiction. So if you don’t mind expanding on how you unravel that contradiction I’d be greatful.

The reason why Objectivist ethics entails government is to contain the contradiction.

Recall that “rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival”. Starting from the primary principle that it is right for man to have the “freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice”, it is a corollary that use of force contradicts that principle. An act can be judged as “good” versus “bad” using this principle as the standard. If you act consistent with the principle that by men act by making uncoerced choice, then you are acting morally, if you contradict the principle you are acting immorally. You only have a right to act morally.

The possibility of contradiction arises because one person may decide to behave immorally, and steal. The contradiction is that it is right for you to keep that which you have created (or acquired in exchange for something that you created), yet it is not possible for you to keep it because another person has your stuff and isn’t giving it back. The contradiction has to be eliminated. If it can be eliminated by persuasion (telling the person to give your stuff back) then that is the best resolution, but assume that the person insists on keeping it, in which case justice is possible only with the additional application of force. Thus force becomes necessary, in order to preserve your right to keep your property. But it does not follow that unlimited force is necessary to preserve your right.

Since there is no “right to coerce into a decision”, there is also no “right to act coercively according to your own judgment” – it is wrong to act coercively according to your own judgment. It is right for you to keep your property. The institution of government was created to precisely define that element of force which is necessary in order to establish the conditions for man’s proper existence, by narrowly delimiting the conditions under which acts contrary to man’s nature are necessary to enable man to exist qua man. The contradiction that an initiation of force introduces is not rightly answered by applying unlimited counterforce, it is rightly answered by applying only that force necessary to secure human existence.

Government has a special logical status that distinguishes it from men – it only does that which it is not proper for men to do, namely use force. Government does not act according to its own judgment: it acts automatically and dispassionately according to law, just as water flows dispassionately in response to physical law. Government does not pursue its own values or existence: it only acts to contain the contradiction introduced by men choosing to act against proper human existence by initiating force. It does so by demanding that all uses of force be subject to objective prior scrutiny, establishing rules of evidence which require it to be objectively proven that rights were violated and that the accused violated those rights.

From this it follows that man can be fully free to pursue any action that does not violate the rights of another (by using force to secure a choice), and a man’s existence is not contingent on him violating the rights of another. Government exists to automatically apply the level of force necessary to guarantee man’s existence, which means that in the context of a civilized society governed by law, force by an individual is not a right, since it is not necessary.

54

Recall that “rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival”.

Proper is a subjective word. What is the difference between proper survival and improper survival?

55

you have to tell me specifically how an objective justice system would conflict with individual rights, as Ayn Rand defined them (in other words, how such a system would prevent someone from acting in their rational self interest).

I see what you mean. When you talk in such broad generalities there is no conflict apparent. But these principles guide individual action, and define specifically what the government should and should not do. They have to be true in every particular instance. I’ll give you two specific examples to illustrate:

  1. Locking a person up in a prison certainly prevents him from acting in his self interest in many ways. Men have a right to be free to act in their own self interest therefore putting a man in prison is a rights violation. Yet, we consider it proper - even mandatory - that this be done to certain people regardless.

It is a really simple problem: either there is something that voids rights or rights are not a fact of reality but a human creation (to be granted and taken away by some human created criteria). The former is true. My take on it, based on the fact that a right pertains to the means of survival of a rational being, is that in committing a crime one chooses to act other than as a rational being and thus one ceases to be a being that has rights (to some extent - depending on the crime committed).

This is entirely consistent with the view that all rights violations are due to the initiation of force (since retaliatory force is only employed against individuals who have forfeited their rights and thus there is no rights violation in its use) and with emergency situations (where existing as a rational being is rendered impossible).

I don’t see another non-contradictory way to understand how rights, crime and retaliation relate to each other.

  1. A man is walking down the street and another person snatches a bag that he is carrying and runs off. The man is under no immediate threat, the thief is simply running away. Now say this man is armed. The view generally expressed here is that by drawing his weapon and yelling STOP this man would be usurping the role of government. He should instead find a police officer, report the crime and wait for the government to take action.

This seems like a bad choice for the victim - trading the certainty of recovering his property by acting himself for the off chance that it might be recovered by the police. Now perhaps someone would classify all such scenarios as “emergencies”, but that is really conceding my point without accepting the logic of it (they would be accepting that a victim may use force while not under immediate personal threat).

Recall that “rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival”. Starting from the primary principle that it is right for man to have the “freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice”, it is a corollary that use of force contradicts that principle.

Initiation of force. The use of force defensively does not contradic that principle.

But it does not follow that unlimited force is necessary to preserve your right.

Agreed.

The contradiction that an initiation of force introduces is not rightly answered by applying unlimited counterforce, it is rightly answered by applying only that force necessary to secure human existence.

Again agreed.

Government has a special logical status that distinguishes it from men – it only does that which it is not proper for men to do, namely use force.

And here lies the core of my disagreement with you. Government may not do anything that is improper for men to do. It may not initiate force just as men may not initiate force. The issue being: are rights violated by applying the force necessary to secure an individuals rights - retaliatory force - only because the one applying that force is not a government official?

Since an act is what it is, regardless of what men think of it, consider:

Assume proper doctrine for a policeman recovering a stolen item is to order the subject to surrender it, taser him if he refuses. Is it proper to arrest a man for assault if he does the exact same thing - if it can be proven that the “victim” is actually a thief (to the same standards as the policeman would need that proof in order to act) and that the man was recovering his property?

The key here being that an individual and a government official may use the exact same amount of retaliatory force in a given instance, but you are claiming the first one is committing a crime.

Note that I’m not advocating different standards of proof either - only that while the government is constrained by due process before it can act, the individual only has to meet that burden of proof after he acts. This is a limitation on government - its every act must be proven proper before it acts - while individuals are free to act as they please (but held accountable).

In practice I don’t see this making absolutely any difference to life in a free country other than that “legitimate defense” would be a valid defense strategy in some cases beyond immediate defense of life (though for deadly force that would remain the only scenario). From a conceptual point of view, though, I think the issue is important.

56

It is a really simple problem: either there is something that voids rights or rights are not a fact of reality but a human creation (to be granted and taken away by some human created criteria).

I don’t think that exhausts the possibilities. Another possibility is that rights are contextual. That is to say, if we are to be very exact about it no human being has a “right to roam free” as such. We may use that as a short-hand, but we really mean the right to roam free under certain conditions. We might get more detailed and say: every human being who has not committed a crime has the right to roam free. (Of course, the real detailed specification will include much more.) So, no right was really given or taken away, nor has the being changed his nature.

57

Initiation of force. The use of force defensively does not contradic that principle.

It does, but if you don’t accept that principle, then of course you will reach a different conclusion. Rand has made particular identifications (the ones that define Objectivism), that “rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival”, which means “freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice”. How would you restate the concept of rights or man’s nature to achieve this complication regarding initiation of force vs. other kinds of force?

58

Another possibility is that rights are contextual. (…) We might get more detailed and say: every human being who has not committed a crime has the right to roam free.

This is another way to express the same relationship I established (if I understand you correctly). If rights pertain to non-criminals (this being the context in which they are applicable), using force against a criminal is not a rights violation.

If you put anything abut government or due process in your context for rights, however, I have to object. Rights are the basis and starting point for political philosophy. They are a primary concept and cannot be logically dependent on a particular government structure to determine their applicability.

How would you restate the concept of rights or man’s nature to achieve this complication regarding initiation of force vs. other kinds of force?

Defending oneself and one’s property against aggression is required by man’s nature for his proper survival. Initiating the use of force, on the other hand, is not.

No restatement is necessary.

59

Defending oneself and one’s property against aggression is required by man’s nature for his proper survival. Initiating the use of force, on the other hand, is not.

No restatement is necessary.

It clearly is since, as you can see from Rand’s statement, she does not speak of “freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice except when being forced to make a choice in response to his own initiation of force”. Furthermore, it is false that in the context of a civilized society, free use of force to regain your property is required for man’s survival. That is exactly what the function of government is: to make the use of force unnecessary.