Photo - child stalked by vulture

Jon L.

So, he “accept[s] the justice of” it. You, and even Bill, might think it’s a vital philosophical point to distinguish between “the justice of” killing innocents in the course of targeting the enemy, vs. “the right” to do so, but I doubt it ranks as all that important a distinction if you are the dead innocent.

And in that same line of thought Jon, why should it not be a vital philosophical point to distinguish between "the justice of compulsory witness testimony" in the course of retribution against a criminal (or the acquittal of the innocent) vs. the "right" to do so.

Post 101

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 9:18am

Aaron, how broadly are subpoena powers used now? If you can make an argument they are being used too broadly or are used in an abusive manner, why not make an argument for further limitations on subpoena powers? Government is abusive as it is right now in almost everything it does, but unless you are an anarchist, advocating the abolishment of government is a non-sequiter (you can always just amend government, or amend subpoena powers). You said you weren't compensated for the work you did to put together information for a deposition. Fine, then you ought to be compensated.

To make it simpler though, I just want to know how broadly those supporting subpoena power really support it. Dramatic hypotheticals of murder and hangmen and some nasty person arbitrarily choosing not to testify are a refuge for subpoena advocates, an unlikely situation which does not represent the vast majority of cases where subpoenas are used.

Is that a philosophical argument? The way it's used now is not "practical"? (Sorry if justice is not an efficient cost-effective proposition) Hypothetical situations? Dear lord Aaron, you are feigning incredulity that a witness testimony or piece of evidence given from a third party has not been the deciding factor for someone's innocence or guilt? Surely you have got to be joking?

And Jon L. prepare for another compliment.

C. Jeffrey Small wrote:

Bill and I have our differences, but if I were forced to choose anyone on this forum whom I would trust to exercise the use of force over me with considered foresight, responsibility and restraint, it would be him.

And while I have great respect and admiration for Bill, and I believe him to be an extremely intelligent individual, (I must give a compliment to Bill too of course) I can only respond to this with I would trust Jon L. to exercise the use of force over me to insure I was afforded every opportunity I could have to exonerate myself if I was falsely accused of a crime or if a murderer was about to get away with his crime to continue with his murdering spree.

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/07, 9:42am)

Post 102

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 11:09am

Speaking only for myself, I find that a well defined set of philosophical principles has provided me with great guidance in navigating the myriad choices one is faced with in life. Having spent considerable time refining those principles over the past 53 years, I find it a rare situation where I am forced to consider having to abandon those principles in the face of extreme circumstances. Maybe I've lead a charmed life and been lucky to not be confronted by emergency situation after emergency situation where I need to make a tough choice between principle and pragmatic action required to save my highest values. But it certainly seems to me in forum discussion after forum discussion that there are a great many people who find this necessity the rule rather than the exception.

I'm at a loss in any attempt to address the issue of "justice" vs. "rights". I don't see where the conflict arises. There is nothing "just" about strapping a baby to the front of a tank or about being born into a world where you starve from the moment of birth. If confronted with situations such as these, it's not going to have one iota of impact on my principles. I'm simply going to have to deal with the reality of the situation as best as I can within the framework of a belief in the sanctity of life and individual rights. Even in these circumstances, I would find the guidance of my principles indispensable. It certainly makes me nervous to here that I might be killed by fellow Objectivists if I don't act in an approved manner. I hope that everyone who advocates imposing the death sentence on those that don't act in a way that they judge to be rational can at least agree on exactly what is expected of your fellow man in each circumstances. Lord help me if I get caught in the crossfire between two of you who have different ideas of what constitutes rationality.

As an aside, I might suggest first going after the guy who is strapping the babies to the tank before addressing the photographers of the world. Just a thought.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 103

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 11:20am

C. Jeffrey

It certainly makes me nervous to here that I might be killed by fellow Objectivists if I don't act in an approved manner.

I'd like to distance myself from those comments. I don't believe one should be killed if they don't act in an approved manner and advocating killing that journalist is not something I agree with (unless say it was Ted Bundy)

But just because we may have difficult situations that presents oneself a difficult moral choice, does not absolve oneself from making that choice. They may be controversial but they are legitimate situations. The situation of an innocent falsely accused of a crime or the guilty let free to continue terrorizing society are not extreme hypothetical and unlikely scenarios. They are part of our everyday lives that one has to address, rather than stick one's head in the sand like an ostrich if you will, it's better to be honest about reality and come up with a fair and just manner to address these issues.

Post 104

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 11:52am

John Aramos wrote:

> But just because we may have difficult situations that presents oneself a difficult moral choice,
> does not absolve oneself from making that choice. They may be controversial but they are legitimate situations.
> The situation of an innocent falsely accused of a crime or the guilty let free to continue terrorizing society
> are not extreme hypothetical and unlikely scenarios. They are part of our everyday lives that one has to address,
> rather than stick one's head in the sand like an ostrich if you will, it's better to be honest about reality
> and come up with a fair and just manner to address these issues.

John:

I believe that I understand your point and I'm not unsympathetic to it. I'm not advocating ignoring tough-choice situations such as the issue of false criminal accusations. What I'm asking is how do you suggest that they be addressed? Is there some wider principle beyond what Bill or I propose that you can articulate that deals with these cases, or do they fall outside of normal philosophical principles and simply have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis? If the latter, how do you then delimit which cases get this special treatment and how are they to be resolved? As we already see on this discussion, different people have wildly different views of what constitutes justice. How are individual rights protected when there is not a principle involved?

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 105

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 12:16pm

Earlier in this thread I said that (in Africa), I would play by jungle rules -- that I'd not only lecture but actually physically assault the photographer. Here are a few assumptions with which I was working when I made that comment (to hopefully provide a clearer context):

-it's a law-less land

-so, while the photographer was inhumane, he wasn't violating any laws

-he was profiteering off of another's impending doom and demise

-there are no "musts" or "obligations" to or from anyone (it was my own free choice to smack him around while forcefully lecturing him)

-I "somehow" -- and this is, admittedly, hard-to-believe -- couldn't step in to save the child myself. So this child's "imminent" death was left ONLY to the decision made by said photographer (perhaps I was watching his video from a "base camp" or something?)

-In the jungle, humans are either friends or enemies (no in-between, like in civil societies) -- depending on their stances regarding 2 things: the sanctity of human life; and the necessity of justice

-I was ASSuming that the photographer would "somehow" be involved in my own personal life later on down the road

-In short, I was operating out of a Tribal Mentality (but I thought it appropriate to do, in the context which I've elaborated on above)

Hope that puts things more into perspective.

:-)

Ed
[context is everything]

Post 106

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 12:45pm

In post #43, Joe said:

What we see is, when the stakes are high, Objectivist ideas are thrown out in favor of a person's traditional beliefs or feelings. All you need is one starving child, and people surrender the philosophical battle to the altruists. All you need is a strong emotional incentive, and principles are discarded. And not simply discarded. Discarded with pride. As if people with principles are just dogmatic, reciting their mantras, worshipping their abstract ideas. This is just romanticizing emotionalism and lack of principles.

This is exactly right, Joe, and it is very important because it is all too common.

It's an application of what I call the "reductio ad nauseam" method. In order to prove that a principle is false, you assume the principle is true and then deduce a consequence that makes you sick. QED. And the fact that it makes you sick is taken to be an indication of your moral superiority.
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 107

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 1:04pm

C. Jeffrey and I as well am not unsympathetic to your point and Bill's. It is a tough moral choice. But I think there are some reasonable standards one can use here.

First we are only discussing taking action when an initiation of force has occurred. So compelling people to give testimony or evidence on something that bears no relevance to a crime is pointless. There must have been a crime committed.

Second, there ought to be an open and transparent due process to subpoena powers. It can't be secret, and it must be open to scrutiny and criticism with a right to appeal.

Third, it ought to only be used for information that is relevant to the trial. Asking for information on any other unrelated issue ought to be off limits and no longer is meaningful to the pursuit of justice.

Fourth, all witnesses or parties given a court order for information should be compensated for their time by the party making the request (either defendant or plaintiff, whichever is the case).

I don't think any of these rules so long as they are objectively applied violate the principle of establishing justice through retaliatory force. We can't say retaliatory force is no longer valid because someone may get hurt as any war time practice always may kill an innocent who did not transgress against anyone. The question always is who's culpable for that hurt? The one retaliating or the one who initiated force to begin with?

I tell you one subpoena power though that I always found absurd was congressional power of subpoena on citizens. I think that has no purpose whatsoever other than to abuse citizens.

Post 108

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 1:27pm

With Bill’s and Jeffery’s objections in mind, go back and read Rand’s answer about subpoenas—she sounds like a monster, doesn’t she?

So how can that be?

I raised the question of entering a landowner’s property, in a battlefield context, against his objections, for the purpose of mounting a defense against an invader because it serves well as an example of what might, (like justifying subpoenas,) appear monstrous.

Yet most of us here approve of using force to use the objecting landowner’s land.

HOW do we justify it?

One way is to say it’s an emergency, and one (or the military charged with protecting one) may do whatever it must to protect itself when a gun is pointed at it’s head. This approach says: ‘Yes, it’s a violation of the landowner’s rights, but tough shit—there’s a gun pointed at my head.”

Another way is to argue that the landowner doesn’t HAVE any right to hold his freshly planted corn seedlings, (or whatever it is that generates his objection,) against our need to protect ourselves from the gun pointed at our head. This approach dispenses with the whole problem of justifying violating his rights, because this approach argues HE NEVER HAD THAT RIGHT in the first place. By this argument, the landowner’s objections and attempts to prevent us access to the land is itself an initiation of force, he is acting outside his rights (and getting us killed in the process.)

This latter approach is the one Rand employs in her justification of subpoenas.

Here she is:

This is from a Raymond Newman interview of Ayn Rand, (about 1980, not certain):

Newman’s Question:

“Miss Rand, Article 6 of the Bill of Rights gives individuals the right to subpoena witnesses to testify in their favor, and people who don’t respond to those subpoenas are subject to contempt citations and possible fines and imprisonment. Does this deny the freedom of the witness if he chooses not to testify?”

Rand’s Answer:

“No, not really. I am in favor of those laws because if a court case, then somebody, presumably, has been hurt. The witness has knowledge that is relevant to the issue, and if he refuses to testify he is the one who is then violating the rights of the defendant, or whoever is involved. If either party needs the information which you have, you couldn’t have a rational or an honest reason for refusing that information because you are interfering with justice then. You are in effect saying, ‘The court may decide otherwise without me, but I don’t want to testify.’ I don’t think that that’s legitimate.”

Where does she get off saying that a refusal to testify is itself a violation of rights?! (Let alone speaking the word “need.” “Need”?!!!! Yes, she said, “needs.”)

She says it because, just as the landowner DOESN’T HAVE THE RIGHT to deny us the means to save our life from an invasion (attempting such being a violation of rights,) so also the reluctant witness DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to withhold evidence and derail justice (doing such being a violation of rights.)

Those of you who are dismayed and repulsed at the line of argument taken by John and myself should bear in mind we’re not the only ones who regard it as sound.

Little thing called context.

Post 109

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 2:50pm

In post #107 John Armaos discusses various criteria by which he would delimit the use of subpoenas in service of criminal investigations.

John:

(Feel free to call me Jeff. It's a pain when you use your middle name, and the use of the first initial is an attempt to solve a long-running problem - not a pretension!)

I can see that your four points all seem very reasonable and are designed to limit the abuse of subpoenas. However, once you open this door and accept that it is alright to compel an individual to testify in a proceeding against their will, how do you then deny congress the power to subpoena; something which you think is unnecessary and abusive? I believe that those that argue for this congressional power use the same type of arguments to justify their position that you use in justifying your proposal. I have a hard time seeing how to rationally support one while denying the other.

And once we head in this direction, how do we deny the government's use of torture techniques or warrantless searches? Once you have agreed that individual autonomy is not sacrosanct and people may be compelled to act against their wishes in circumstances where they have not initiated force or fraud, where exactly are the limits enforced and how will you argue otherwise against proposals with which you disagree?

When we allow people the freedom to make their own choices, we have to be prepared to accept the fact that we may disagree with the choices that they make. I believe I can make a rational case in defense of an individual's right to fully direct the course of their own life so long as they do not interfere with another person's right to do the same. And I am prepared to accept that this means that someone might, as I judge it, screw up their life by taking drugs, or that a photographer might act in a way that I judge to be inhumane. This isn't part of the perfect world I would wish into existence if I could, but I'm willing to accept these things as the price of my and everyone else's personal freedom. However, once we breach this clear and rigid line of personal autonomy, what can we rely upon to defend our freedom? We are then reduced to pragmatic arguments about ultimate ends, and if you can argue that being compelled to testify on behalf of someone else is OK, and compulsory jury duty is OK, then it must certainly be alright for the government to temporarily hold each of us, administer sodium pentothal and subject us to a lie detector test in order to ensure our country's safety against terrorists. So long as we are compensated for our trouble.

I remember in fifth grade my math teacher showing us how by allowing one error to go uncorrected in a mathematical system (for example, accepting 2=3) would then allow you to prove that anything was true. A well constructed philosophy like Objectivism is similar. It is comprised of a set of interrelated principles resting on certain, basic, self-evident axioms. But once you breach any of these principles, the whole thing begins to crumble like a house of cards. The principle of personal freedom rests upon a recognition of individual autonomy, i.e., the right to direct the course of one's own life. And if you allow a crack in the application of this principle, then you can expect to see a steady erosion of personal freedom over time. To substantiate my point I only need to wave my arms around at the current state of our culture and see where we have ended up after 200+ years of inconsistent application of the principles enumerated in the Constitution. This is why I argue so strongly against those who are willing to "bend" principle in service of some particular result. I do not believe that they clearly see the unintended long-range consequences of these proposals.

With regards to Jon's comments in post #108, I think Rand was speaking off-the-cuff during a live interview and I'm not convinced that this represents her deeply considered view on the topic. But even it it did, I would disagree with her based upon what I have said above.

So Jon, considering you argument, I take it that you believe that one person has a duty to act in service of another based solely upon the circumstances of the other. If you are invaded, attacked, accused of a crime or become the victim of any other form of injustice, and if my life or property could be of some use to you in correcting that injustice, then it is OK to confiscate my property or compel me to act in your service to the degree that it relates to the injustice. Is that a fair summarization? And not only that, my rights of freedom of thought, freedom of action and disposal of personal property actually slip out of existence in this context.

If anyone needed a concrete example of what I was saying above, here it is.

> Little thing called context.

I'm a strong supporter of considering the context in any analysis and I believe that this is one of the most fundamentally important aspects of Objectivism. But this bare assertion of "context" is not a substitution for an actual argument in support of your contention. Neither you Jon, nor Rand in the interview quotes you present, offer an argument for your conclusions. You simple assert it. I would really appreciate it if you could explain why your position is correct and how it is justified within a framework of individual rights.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 110

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 3:20pm

“Neither you Jon, nor Rand in the interview quotes you present, offer an argument for your conclusions. You simple assert it. I would really appreciate it if you could explain why your position is correct and how it is justified within a framework of individual rights.”

This is highly annoying. I have not merely asserted, but have made multiple posts on the subject of “how it is justified.” YOU, Sir, are the one simply asserting, falsely, that I have not.

You may address all the justifications I have offered and say why you think they fail, but saying that all I’ve done is to assert things is patently unfair.

I think I have done the best I can personally muster in my arguments, I can think of no other ways to present the argument. I accept that you reject it.

One more thing.

“I think Rand was speaking off-the-cuff during a live interview and I'm not convinced that this represents her deeply considered view on the topic.”

I think she was not speaking “off-the-cuff.” In the very same interview, she answers a question, her very first words, “I have given it no thought at all and, off-hand, I would say…”

The question was about gun control, a subject we know she had been answering questions about for DECADES. So, we can surmise that if “no thought at all” actually means, “some thought,” then it follows that answering a question, (in the very same interview) about subpoenas without making any such disclaimer whatsoever, means: ‘more than some thought.’

Also, I have the tape. There’s nothing tentative in her voice, and no pause while she considers it as though she’s never thought about it. Rather, she rolls right out with her answer.

Also, she says, “I am in favor of those laws.” How would she come to favor something she hadn’t thought about yet?

Also, you cannot produce anything from her in writing, on the radio, or even reports from people who knew her, that would indicate retraction of this position, making such mere arbitrary speculation. Whereas, I have a tape of her wherein she reported what she favored.

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 8/07, 4:02pm)
(Edited by Jon Letendre on 8/07, 4:12pm)

Post 111

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 4:11pm

Rand & Reason, not Revolution

"With [these] objections in mind, go back and read Rand’s answer about subpoenas—she sounds like a monster, doesn’t she? So how can that be?" -Letendre

Rand repeated over and over again that any truly radical political change such as a voluntary system of taxation would necessarily be the last and not the first step in the cultural renaissance she envisioned. Rand was an advocate of a minimalist state, not an anarchist, and not a Libertarian. Except for her advocacy of free trade and a minimal state, she never advocated tearing down the traditional mechanisms of common law. She did not formulate a theory of jurisprudence, indeed, she specifically mentioned this as one area that would have to be worked out by others after she was gone. When she did speak of the law as it existed prior to the so-called regulatory and tax "reforms" of the Progressive Era it was almost always with approval. She made full use herself of the institutions of the civil law. She never advocated anything so radical as even tax protests, let alone complaining against jury duty per se or the subpoena power.

How can Rand be such a "monster?" Only if one ignores the fact that Rand never advocated starting over from scratch, but rather accepted the wisdom of the Founders, the reason of common law, and wanted a return to the classical liberalism of the post-Civil War era of free trade. Just as Rand never advocated throwing out our science textbooks because she herself hadn't studied evolution or because of some of the modern aberrations of certain quantum theorists, she never advocated anarchy or a repeal of the Constitution or even expressed a problem with the jury system or common law. At the end of Atlas Shrugged, did they tear up the Constitution, or make a few improvements?

At the risk of again being castigated for recommending that people study a little law before they build a utopia on floating abstractions, I suggest exactly that: study the law. Rand wanted to fix some modern flaws, not to tear down the legal edifice or overthrow its foundations. One doesn't leave building renovations and maintenance to theoretical physicists, one calls in trained and experienced engineers.

If you want to improve the jury system or make sure that subpoenas are an instrument of justice, and not intimidation, then study a little law before advocating radical surgery. To paraphrase Justice Louis Brandeis, there are over fifty laboratories of law available for Americans to learn from.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/07, 7:52pm)

Post 112

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 4:18pm

Just to be clear why I object to congressional power of subpoena for private citizens (I would regard subpoenas for government officials by congress as a different matter) is because the purpose of Congress was to write the laws and rules for a trial, not conduct a trial themselves. So to me that violates the first criteria needed for subpoena power, that it be used in response to an initiation of force, i.e. to be used in a trial where the discovery process is taking place.

Post 113

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 4:26pm

Congressional subpoena power as it is currently used for grandstanding and especially against private citizens and in political fishing expeditions is certainly an excellent example of its abuse, John.

Post 114

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 7:34pm

Also, she was certainly intelligent enough to understand that her answer sanctioned the use of force against someone who had not themself initiated force, even if hearing the question was the first time she had heard of subpoenas. Suggesting otherwise is an insult to her intelligence.

How much more clear could it be that the NIOF was not the totem to her that it is to so many?

Context in this context means that legal principles must be linked back to moral ones, which in turn must be linked back to the context that gives rise to moral principles: Life.

An example of dropping this context would be the libertarian who quotes the NIOF and asserts it’s immutability in protest to a war response that would predictably kill innocents, i.e., people who have not themselves initiated force. The libertarian insists that one sit quietly and await his destruction, since a retaliation that will predictably kill innocents is a big no, no, as it would violate the NIOF.

HOW is he dropping the context? By forgetting that the NIOF is a legal principle, not an immutable law of nature. It has a purpose and a context: Life. Using it to demand that someone commit suicide by not retaliating, is applying it outside of its purpose, outside of its context. He is elevating the NIOF above life and the requirements of life, (which requirements include the need to sometimes retaliate in the way that will save the life of the aggressed, even if it will result in dead innocents.) He is forgetting that the NIOF is properly in service to life, not the other way around.

How is a person who protests against subpoenas dropping context? By forgetting that the NIOF is a legal principle, not an immutable law of nature. It has a purpose and a context: Life. Using it to demand that Bill can just hang, is applying it outside of its purpose, outside of its context. He is elevating the NIOF above life and the requirements of life, (which requirements include the need to sometimes retaliate in the way that will save the life of the aggressed, even if it will result in Jon’s inconvenience.) He is forgetting that the NIOF is properly in service to life, not the other way around.

Post 115

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 7:41pm

God, that was eloquent, Jon.

Post 116

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 8:48pm

What Ted said.

Ed

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 10:52pm

Thanks, guys. The compliments on my writing and arguments, coming from people like you, John, Ted and Ed, really means something to me.

To clarify even further, I am not saying that Rand’s answer indicates approval for a REAL violation of NIOF; I am saying her answer indicates her approval for violation of the libertarian version of NIOF. The libertarian version is: No use of force against someone who has not themselves initiated force. The REAL meaning of NIOF is: No use of force except in retaliation to force. This distinction is key.

The libertarian version is: No use of force against someone who has not themselves initiated force.

The REAL meaning of NIOF is: No use of force except in retaliation to force.

The libertarian version precludes responding to foreign aggression in such way that innocents will be killed. It precludes wasting a tank, turret pointed at your head, if there’s a baby duct-taped alongside.

The real version does not.

The libertarian version precludes entering land against the owner’s objections in order to defend against an invasion.

The real version does not.

The libertarian version precludes compelling Jon to tell us who really committed the murder.

The real version does not.

Slippery slope concerns are legitimate. Lines must be drawn and all that, but this much is clear: The libertarian version leads to nonsense. There is no choice but to come down the slope to some level “below” that version.

Post 118

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 11:04pm

The case in which it's proper to commandeer an owner's land in order to defend your life against an enemy is like the case in which it's proper to steal food in order to survive. But in both cases, you must be willing to compensate the owner for violating his property rights.

In prosecuting a suspect, however, the agents of the criminal justice system are not in an emergency situation in which their very lives are at risk. A trial by jury is not the same as a war zone in which they will be killed if they don't initiate force against a person who refuses to cooperate.

The fact that the defendant’s case cannot properly be adjudicated without the testimony of a witness who refuses to come forward does not give the government the right to coerce him into testifying, any more than the fact that people’s rights cannot properly be defended without a sufficient number of police officers gives the government the right to draft young men and women to serve on the police force. What is the difference between compelling testimony in a court of law in order to protect people's rights and drafting young men and women to become police officers in order to protect people's rights? If force is proper in the one case, why isn’t it proper in the other?

The refusal to provide evidence is not a violation of the defendant's rights, any more than the refusal to defend an innocent man from an attack is a violation of his rights.

As I noted in an earlier post, one possible solution to this problem is to give people the option of agreeing to testify, once they turn eighteen, in exchange for having their own cases heard in court or in exchange for being allowed to vote. A person would be free to refuse the offer, but if he exercised his right of refusal, he would lose these civil privileges. Alternatively, if he signed the agreement, he would be contractually bound to testify in court, if he should ever be required to. Another possibility is to offer to pay witnesses for their testimony.

Quoting Rand in Atlas Shrugged, "Force is proper only in retaliation and only against the man who initiates its use." Yes, she was referring to a normal context, not an emergency situation. But inasmuch as the criminal justice system is part of a normal civilized society, it must be administered without resorting to the initiation of force, just as government financing in a free society must be carried on without resorting to compulsory taxation.

- Bill

[Edited for grammar]

(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/08, 9:09am)

Post 119

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 11:09pm