A Policeman's Lot is not a Happy One

Would you take a bullet for your client?

Not unless that was part and parcel of the agreement I signed up for... and I'd be real hesitant to sign up for something that offered significant possibilities of my being shot for anything less than a defense of my core values.

Post 21

Thursday, September 26, 2013 - 9:47pm

The word "police" appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. The first police force was the London Metropolitan formed by Sir Robert Peel in 1829. American cities followed and today Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago argue about who had the first by whatever definitions that the traditional "night watch" or "fire watch" evolved to copy the London "bobbies." It was only after the Civil War that the policeman in a blue uniform became an integral part of large cities.

As the discussion of "Racism" drifted here.

Post 24 Thursday, September 26 - 7:25pm Reply
[MEM:] I would say that it is within the proper police powers of the government to inspect a factory on the same basis that the police would stop and frisk a known felon to see if he is carrying a firearm. ... and yes an insurance inspection certificate perhaps would meet their needs and they could go about their business elsewhere...
[SW]: Marotta appears to have tossed individual rights out the window. ... Where does Marotta think "proper police powers of government" come from if not individual rights and the Constitution?

The drift that took us here was my citation of a statement from Ayn Rand that no one has a right to offer unsafe working conditions. She also suggested that firearms could be registered. The concept unlying both is that no one has the right to endanger other people. It is well-established that the police have a right (a responsibility, in fact) to stop and frisk a known felon suspected of carrying a firearm. In the classic case of Terry versus Ohio, the armed felon was stopped in front of a jewelry store.

You either want your rights protected or you do not. I can understand being afraid of the police, given our federal poilice state with 50 different federal police agencies. But that was not the discussion. The discussion there and here was about the best society, what should be.

Post 22

Thursday, September 26, 2013 - 11:40pm

Marotta, you should have paid attention to what Bill Dwyer said here. An unsafe workplace is only a crime if the employer engaged in a form of fraud - knowingly promising or implying a level of safety that doesn't exist.

You have gone from anarchist, who doesn't understand the need for laws, to progressive who doesn't understand the proper basis for laws.

You wrote, "You either want your rights protected or you do not." Please explain how my rights are protected by having a government that makes nanny-state regulations about factory safety, or stops people on the street to frisk them when they are doing nothing to violate anyone's rights? Before you start telling me about the history of police departments or some other arcane bit of trivia, pay attention to the actual concepts involved here: individual rights. Which moral right of mine is violated when some one is carrying a gun but not engaged in behavior that is threatening? Which moral right of mine is violated when someone offers me money to work in a factory that isn't up to fire code, or some other bureaucrat's wet-dream of perfect safety (assuming the factory owner doesn't mislead me about that and we have a meeting of the minds regarding our contract)?

You wrote, "The concept unlying[sic] both is that no one has the right to endanger other people. Rand would never have agreed to that wording. A military recruiting office is attempting to sell young men and women on the idea of putting themselves at risk, and they have every right to endanger those who join - as long as they don't force them to join (as with a draft) or engage in fraud. People get aboard fishing boats to go off the coast of Alaska for some of the most dangerous work there is. People work high steel, police dangerous neighborhoods, work with toxic materials, or infected patients, enter burning buildings to put out fires. It is about choice - it is free enterprise.

Have you become a statist?

I don't know what specifically Ayn Rand said, or what the context was, but I don't agree with the your version of what you claim she said, and I don't believe it represents her views of moral rights, or what she would agree to be proper legal rights. If she did say it like you imply, I disagree with it. (I don't imagine that would upset you since you like to disagree with Rand, with Objectivism, and with minarchy).

You wrote, "The discussion there and here was about the best society, what should be." Your post was about a quote you claim is from Rand that runs counter to her well published understanding of individual rights. And your discussion was about how it is proper for a government to stop people and frisk them for a gun and to force safety standards on factory owners. Those are not example of what I'd call the best society, or what should be.

As to your mention of "Racism" I haven't forgotten that you accused me of being a racist in post #11 of that thread, in what can only be called a pack of libelous lies. If you choose not to apologize for that kind of crude ad hominem attack, then you can understand why my estimation of your character is less than favorable. But what is the most disappointing is that several people on that very thread politely pointed out errors in your posts - factual errors, and logical errors - but apparently to no effect. It is sad.

Post 23

Saturday, September 28, 2013 - 1:16am

In the cases of the factory fires in which workers were killed because the managers locked the doors, why do the police need to wait for harm before they act? The unsafe conditions are the "probable cause" that allows the police to act before the report of a crime.

A citation of authority is not an appeal to authority. While Ayn Rand was certainly an insightful, cogent, and penetrating philosopher, just because she said something does not make it true. But it is worth discussing, especially, in a forum dedicated to the philosophy of Objectivism.

SW: "I don't know what specifically Ayn Rand said, or what the context was, but I don't agree with the your version of what you claim she said, and I don't believe it represents her views of moral rights, or what she would agree to be proper legal rights. If she did say it like you imply, I disagree with it."

I cited the source. It was her interview with Edwin Newman transcribed in Objectively Speaking edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz. If you choose not to read it, that is your business. You are also free to disagree with anything you do not know. If you have reasons for your opinions, a discussion board would be appropriate forum to share them.

Steve, I never said that you are a racist. I said that you are a racialist: you believe in the existence of human races. You are not alone in that on this board. DMG also thinks that genetic heritage is consequential. He said that his taxicab would have a Persian but not a cougar in it. Fair enough. I disagree: I would rather have Helen Mirren than Hassan Rouhani in my taxicab. We have a right to our choices. Good discussions come from staying on good terms with those with whom you disagree.

Post 24

Saturday, September 28, 2013 - 12:42pm

In the cases of the factory fires in which workers were killed because the managers locked the doors, why do the police need to wait for harm before they act? The unsafe conditions are the "probable cause" that allows the police to act before the report of a crime.

"Probable cause" only makes sense in the context of a suspected crime. What is the 'crime' here? Violation of a safety code. Safety codes are not laws that arise out of individual rights. Your statist justifications are as hollow as Mayor Bloomberg's justifications for outlawing the sale of large cups of soft drinks - for the well-being of the people. That is a nanny-state. Clearly, you no longer believe that government force should be restricted to the defense or retaliation against initiated force (fraud or theft).
--------------

I read the Rand interview by Neuman in Objectively Speaking and Rand does appear to be treating some forms of workplace danger as something the government could intervene over. But to read that as a call by Rand for safety regulations is a far stretch. And one that says more about the person giving that interpretation, than about what she actually said. It is a live interview and that means she isn't as likely to be as concise as she would be when writing. But note that she says if "...it can be proved there is physical risk... then the employer... can be sued." [my emphasis] That isn't the same as safety regulations.

She begins that answer by saying by saying that government's only proper function is the protection of individual rights, and in defining them she states that that they can ONLY be violated by the initiation of force. (And the initiation of force includes fraud and theft, and contract law is such that a violation of contract can result from fraud or theft, even if the theft was not intentional).

I view her statement about workplace danger as slightly unfortunate wording on her part. She should have stated that the employer is only obligated to be open about any known dangers that might not be obvious to a reasonable person when hiring employees and in that way it becomes part of an implicit contract. That is the basis for any lawsuit. And the ability to succeed in a lawsuit would depend upon a violation of that contract - say through hiding known dangers, or by failing to exercise safety measures that were reasonable in that context (e.g., locking fire exit doors), or violating conditions agreed upon explicitly. That kind of wording would represent a position that is consistent with her philosophy. Safety regulations would not be.
---------------

Steve, I never said that you are a racist. I said that you are a racialist...

You can pretend that most of the definitions of 'racialist' don't include 'racist' in their meaning. You can pretend that you didn't know that, or that it doesn't matter. But the fact is that calling a person a 'racialist' can't be done in an innocent fashion anymore than someone could call you a child molester and then explain that they didn't mean it in the same way that others do. If you were really concerned with staying on good terms with those you disagree with you wouldn't call them vile names.

Post 25

Saturday, September 28, 2013 - 7:50pm

Yes, as I said before, Rand presumably means dangers that the employees are not aware of and to which they would not have consented. That has to be what she means. Given her view of what constitutes a violation of rights, it wouldn't make sense under any other interpretation.

Post 26

Saturday, September 28, 2013 - 8:07pm