RoR: Forum

Ethan,
You lost me. Which part is sad? That he's dead? That it was publicly aired? That criminals can run around LA? That the news organization felt the need to defend their coverage?

Post 1

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 8:47am

Indeed, this article actually sounded encouraging to me. It is refreshing to see police doing their job addressing violent criminals instead of drug users or wallet-wielders.

Post 2

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 9:18am

Jeff,

I think the sad part must have been giving a little girl quite a scare:

At one point, the driver crashed into a highway guardrail, and he also came within several feet of hitting a man and his 4-year-old daughter on a residential street.

or not shooting all the bad guys:

Two passengers who bailed out during the pursuit remained in custody.

//;-)

(Sorry Ethan, just ribbin' ya' a bit.)

Michael

Post 3

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 11:49am

Hi Jeff,

Which part is sad?

Sorry I wasn't clear. I found it refreshing that the police nailed the bastard. I found it sad that the news organization felt the need to defend their coverage. Coverage like this is a statement about justice. Nothing could be more appropriate!

Ethan

Post 4

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:32pm

Ethan,

I had to laugh...

YOU nailed us all. Did you do that on purpose?

LOLOLOL...

//;-)

Michael

Post 5

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 3:58pm

nope :-)

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 7:31pm

Does two wrongs make a right?

Post 7

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 7:33pm

... it's just a question, I often wonder about the revenge feeling we get when someone deserves to get it.

Post 8

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 8:01pm

Paul, have you read any Objectivist writings on the concept justice? Those who value it will feel better seeing someone get what he deserves than someone getting away with something.

Jason

Edited to change "written" to "read" in the above. I typed it in haste!

(Edited by Jason Dixon on 5/16, 7:38am)

Post 9

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 5:11am

Jason wrote:

Paul, have you written any Objectivist writings on the concept justice?

Perhaps you meant read.

Those who value it will feel better seeing someone get what he deserves than someone getting away with something.

Well, yes. However, consider the following points:

justice is a value
the pursuit of values entails costs (TANSTAAFL)
sometimes the cost of achieving justice in some particular case may be more than its value

Sometimes it's better to forget the past and just get on with your life.

I think that part of Paul's point is that the desire for revenge can be more costly, more self-destructive, than any possible justice can justify.

The value of justice (just like all values) is not intrinsic.

Post 10

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 5:44am

The problem with the anarchist conception of justice is that...well, it isn't. They reduce "justice" to economics: Is it financially "worth it," in any given case, to pursue justice for individuals?

It's easy to see where things would lead if "justice" were to become a purely market-driven phenomenon. It would become a subset of utilitarianism: "the greatest good for the greatest number" would supplant the idea of a response to crime that's proportionate to harm done. If it were "too costly" to pursue a clever criminal, or "too financially risky" to go after a criminal gang, it wouldn't happen. If there were "no profit" in protecting certain people, they'd become fair game for any predator.

Anarchism is, in fact, antithetical to the pursuit of justice, as I point out in this essay.

Post 11

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 6:05am

Robert-

Government justice systems are also necessarily limited by practical reality and costs. It's not as if a 100% tax rate was enacted to, say, try to solve the Zodiac killings. There is no divine justice, and the best human system unfortunately still has to trade off cost and feasibility with catching and punishing criminals.

Post 12

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 6:59am

Aaron,

You are of course correct that there are practical constraints on any agency, private or public.

But in the pursuit of justice, government police agencies don't go into a crime scene asking the victims, "Who insures you?" and looking for third-party billing opportunities. They also tend to apportion their investigative and prosecutorial resources according to the relative seriousness of the offenses -- and not the case's profit-or-loss potential. However, in the private sector such considerations are paramount, and would tend to trump the pursuit of proportionate justice. (How many people can afford to hire a full-time private detective?)

That's why the most prominent anarchist theorists who tout market-based "justice" -- most notably economist Bruce Benson -- argue explicitly against my call for the pursuit of proportionate justice (i. e., a system based on moral retribution). Under anarchism, says Benson, potential victims "are expected to...forgo proportional punishment if fair restitution is paid" -- with "fair" being defined by some arbiter, not the victim. Again, see my essay on justice vs. utilitarianism for a refutation of this view.

The anarchist aversion to proportionate punishment, and preference for a utilitarian, profit-driven legal system, is understandable, because the pursuit of proportionate justice is not a profitable enterprise. That is precisely why it should be a government function, something that Ludwig von Mises understood well and argued for in his book Bureaucracy.

But their preference for utilitarianism over justice poses a very dicey problem for anarchists. After all, their entire claim to moral superiority over "minarchists" lies in their allegedly more profound commitment to moral principle. However, observe that when the ultimate choice boils down to moral principle (justice) OR anarchism, their aversion to government trumps moral principle: the pursuit of justice becomes subordinated to the pursuit of financial profit. In other words, anarchists demonstrate that they are primarily motivated not by commitment to moral principle, but by aversion to the state.

Anarcho-capitalism truly embodies that cynical description: "the best justice that money can buy." And of course, none dare call it hypocrisy.

Well, I do.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 5/16, 7:04am)

Post 13

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 7:46am

Rick,

Yes, I typed "written" when I meant "read." Thanks for pointing it out; I've edited the post.

Regarding,

I think that part of Paul's point is that the desire for revenge can be more costly, more self-destructive, than any possible justice can justify.

Paul's post did not imply what you've said it did. It implied an unhappiness with the emotional reaction some had to the news story. That is contrary to Objectivism (read: the facts of reality regarding the necessity of justice to life). Paul's post also implied that punishment/retribution is not ok because the response is "wrong" (his statement that "two wrongs don't make a right"). That is contrary to the Objectivist concept of justice also (read: same as above).

Jason

Post 14

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 9:23am

The problem with Bidinotto's idea of justice is that he's more concerned with making sure that the criminal suffers his just deserts than that the victim be made as whole as possible. A morality of rational self-interest ought to be concerned with, well, one's self-interest not the actions of others.

Mencken defined a Puritan as someone who was afraid that someone, somewhere was having fun. Bidinotto seems to be afraid that some criminal somewhere got away with his crime.

I suggest that the best way to reduce crime is to make it unprofitable, preferably before the fact. I also suggest that restitution should take precedence over retribution. (Note: "take precedence over" does not mean "ignore" and that "restitution" includes all costs associated with or occasioned by the crime.)

I believe that if you review Rand's writings she was much more interested in the justice of rewarding the virtuous than in punishing the immoral. Focusing on the criminal instead of the victim is seldom in anyone's rational self-interest.

Post 15

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 11:43am

My point in posting the article was to highlight the fact that images of a criminal being treated justly are often considered innapropriate. While I don't revel in the fact that someone got shot (I hate to see people waste their lives,) I'm glad that the criminal got what was coming to him. When we teach people to always forgive and turn the other cheek, we lose sight of justice and reality. We let the criminals get away with there crimes because we feel sorry for them. As much as it pains me to see the failings of others, I am steadfast in my beleif that they should be punished for those failings. I'm also steadfast in my opinion that we must teach our children about justice, and the consequences of not living in accordance with reality and reason. Seeing something like this on the news, could be disturbing to a child, but if you let your children watch the news, then you should be prepared to talk about this. "Well, little Johnny, it is scary and disturbing, but this is the consequence of this persons actions and choices."

Ethan

Post 16

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 9:07pm