RoR: Forum

I don't even know why I'm replying to Dean's post. If you are a member of an "Objectivist agreeable government" then you have agreed to the rule of law, before the fact. How can you disavow your principles after the fact?

Sam

Post 21

Sunday, January 5, 2014 - 9:56pm

Dean,

You wrote:

Would you agree that in some cases, some might find it worthwhile to "Take the law into their own hands", even in an Objectivist agreeable government situation?

No. You added that clause at the end saying, "even in an Objectivist agreeable government." That means the there would be no rational conflict. (I wrote this first paragraph before reading Sam's post - where he says the same thing... but better. Sam, it might be that Dean is forming a new philosophy that isn't totally compatible with Objectivism).

Dean, you mentioned "information availability" - but in your example the father just had bad information. Now, in a government that was not Objectivist agreeable, one where the government would let the rapist go, then it is a different case - not one of information availability, but rather an absence of justice and protection. The issue of escalation of violence is more a product of the state not being adequately efficient in providing justice and in the cultures views of violence and the commonly held values. Better to establish more efficient forms of government and to promote more rational philosophies than to advocate extra-governmental violence unless the social order and government have broken down so far that no other choice makes sense (and we aren't there.... yet).

If I were the father of a sweet daughter who was raped by some animal, I'd want to kill him. But I'd like to think I would give the state first crack at convicting and punishing him. I suspect that the drive for revenge by the boy, if punished by the state, would be no more likely than the drive of his brothers, father, uncles, gang members, etc., if I took the law into my own hands.

If someone saw him getting off on a technicality when his guilt was totally beyond question, then my objections to vigilante action become much, much smaller.

Post 22

Monday, January 6, 2014 - 12:34pm

The state does not know and furthermore is unable to know the details of the situation down to the same level as the father and the daughter. The state doesn't and is not able to judge solely on the word of the father/daughter, instead must use tangible evidence. The father on the other hand does not have this issue, he has first hand experience evidence. Hence he is more able to bring about justice than the state.

Post 23

Monday, January 6, 2014 - 1:07pm

The state is the proper agent to gather and act on an objective understanding of relevant facts by following established protocols. The father who is likely to be overwhelmed by emotions, is not trained or motivated to make an impartial examination of the evidence (daughters sometimes lie to their fathers), and he is only aware of information on one side of this adversarial position.

You have created an example where you state, in advance, that a rape actually occurred. In real life the rape is alleged till the proper examination of evidence reveals if it was a rape and if the accused is the perpetrator. Humans are fallible, hence the need for the impartial third party and objective standards coupled with efficient procedures to determine which pieces of information are pertinent and valid.

You are advocating a system of where people are guilty until proven innocent except that there will be no trial where the accused can even try to prove to the dad that he was not even in the country the day of the rape. You are advocating that each and every person who can pick up a gun gets to be the cop, the judge, the jury and then the executioner and that there are not even any legally mandated guidelines or limits on their actions.

To say that vigilante justice is the proper standard to be adopted or the desired process to have in place is a call for anarchy. That end of the rule of law will never result in a net-net increase in justice.

Post 24

Monday, January 6, 2014 - 1:57pm

Sam,

"... then you have agreed to the rule of law, before the fact. How can you disavow your principles after the fact?"

Objectivists would never agree to 100% obey the "rule of government". In the case I describe, the father is not initiating force, instead he is retaliating in order to defend himself and his family. I don't see how this contracts Objectivist principles. I don' see how it has been fully established within Objectivist circles that only a particular sized government should be permitted to execute justice decisions. I furthermore think its preposterous to think that two governments would always come to the same justice decisions, no matter how acceptable their laws are to Objectivists.

====

Steve,

From the government's perspective, potentially the government might have evidence of the father killing the boy. Without having evidence to prove the boy's guilt, the government might find the father guilty of murder. Hence this is not anarchy (Steve). Instead it is hierarchical enforcement of justice.

Could not one consider a man, a family, a neighborhood, a city, a county, a state, a country, a continent, a world, each different levels of government?

Post 25

Monday, January 6, 2014 - 4:37pm

Dean,

Objectivists would never agree to 100% obey the "rule of government".

"Rule of law" is a phrase that means something very different. It is put forth as the alternative to a rule by men - by the whims of a dictator. No Objectivist would ever agree to tossing out law.
----------

In the case I describe, the father is not initiating force, instead he is retaliating in order to defend himself and his family.

The father is retaliating, but that is not defense. In this kind of case you have to distinguish between defense which is to prevent the initiation of force, and retaliation. In the case of retaliation, you have to establish, objectively, that the specific retaliation is justifiable in kind and quantity of punishment and against the right person.
--------------

I agree that the government might come after the father for killing the accused rapist, and that is NOT a case of anarchy. What I called "moving towards anarchy" is the advocacy of not using the government or law to provide for retaliation. My statement was that vigilante justice as the proper standard to be adopted is a call for anarchy.
--------------

Could not one consider a man, a family, a neighborhood, a city, a county, a state, a country, a continent, a world, each different levels of government?

Nope. A man is not a government. Saying so is to make the words meaningless. There are levels of government, and Federal, state, county and city are just such a hierarchy. But neighborhoods, HOAs, the Elks Club, older siblings, and man are not. And those that are levels of government operate under the constraints of law.

Post 26

Monday, January 6, 2014 - 8:05pm

Dean said:
"In the case I describe, the father is not initiating force, instead he is retaliating in order to defend himself and his family. "

I beg to differ. It isn't retaliation, it's initiation of a preemptive strike.

"He might question whether his daughter could be made safe from the rapist by state law/state law enforcement. Would the boy be found guilty by the state? Might the boy seek revenge for being punished by the state on the father's family?"

All the doubt about what the perpetrator might or might not do doesn't rise to the level of justification to kill him. To take the argument to another, simpler level, if you were to turn someone over to the authorities to get a reward you might think that he could possibly harm you in retaliation after he served his sentence. Would this justify killing him?

Post 27

Monday, January 6, 2014 - 10:09pm

Sam,

You are right, utterly annihilating your enemies in order to survive in the face of the potential of escalating violence is a pre-preemptive strike that may very well go beyond what a legal authority would judge as justice given whatever evidence the legal authority might have (or even as fact given an omniscient judge). Some component is retaliation, but then goes beyond retaliation into the "pre-emptive strike" territory. Thanks for the clarification!

I'm sure I've seen arguments on this forum in the past about pre-emptive strikes. Some are completely against it. Some say its good if there is "clear and present danger". I don't think anyone here calls for pre-emptive strike on weak evidence. But the threshold and severity of the pre-emptive strike is a slippery slope isn't it? I think a pre-emptive strike violates the NIOF principal, doesn't it?

Steve you agree with performing a pre-emptive strike when there is clear and present danger, don't you? How does that fit in with your NOIF principal laws? Do you consider it a contradiction? What about you Sam?

===

Now back to the discussion of hierarchical governments. Clearly within our existing government, governments at different levels within our society disagree on justice judgments. Sometimes criminals appeal to more encompassing governments, and the more encompassing governments take the case and overrule smaller governments. Between the time the lesser government makes its judgement and the encompassing government makes its judgement, the lesser government might do things to the suspect that the encompassing government might consider a violation of the subjects rights/an injustice (force initiation), where participants in the lesser government might be held accountable for their actions against the suspect.

But in an Objectivist society, you think that the governments will never make contradicting decisions? People wont make mistakes? People won't have slightly different opinions on matters, or have slightly different evidence? They wont conclude different conclusions of guilt or of what kind of restitution/retaliation/incapacitation is just? Just because the laws are based on individual rights, it does not mean that judges will come to the same conclusions. Particularly when each judge is acting on different information. I just don't see how you could argue that they would never contradict each other.

When a lesser government sees that an encompassing government has trumped its judgement... well at least in an Objectivist society we'd not think that the lesser government would disobey the encompassing. But what if say a powerful enemy was threatening to wipe out the lesser government, and the encompassing government commands the lesser to do nothing about it because the encompassing government doesn't trust the lesser's word/evidence... but the lesser believes it is in clear and present danger?

This is the same scenario, I just bumped it up to the first level of government that Steve finds recognizable as a "government".

Steve, Earlier you referenced this concept from Rand: "There is no conflict of interest between rational men." From this I think you are claiming that since the governments are Objectivist that they will not have conflicts on judgements. Well, they may not have conflicts of interest (we are all interested in optimal justice), but they may very well have conflicting information, and due to trust issues may have different stronger alliances and come to completely different conclusions on what happened, and what is lawful severance of justice.

===

And then my last point I'd like to make is to re-assert that long term rational self interest is primary, not to obey the NOIF principal. Maybe you are right Steve, maybe Rand's position was to always obey the NIOF principal, and that is the official Objectivist position? I... don't think that it would be reasonable to expect any real person to behave that way... I would always expect the strong possibility that a person would disobey NIOF if they personally believed they would achieve greater personal goal attainment. Steve you would say that one should integrate obeying NIOF into one's ethical system as a primary requirement for means. We disagree on this. This is what this thread is about anyways, isn't it?

Post 28

Monday, January 6, 2014 - 11:36pm