who acted morally, who acted immorally, in this recent incident?

It is a common misconception that illegal acts are, or ought to be, a subset of immoral acts. In fact many acts that are properly illegal, like underage driving, are not immoral (provided you’re an adequate driver); and many acts that are immoral, like watching little Bobby bleed to death, are properly legal. Libertarianism is a legal position, and to dissect it we need to concentrate more on law and less on morality.

I don't agree that it is a misconception. There are some laws that are procedural or structural in nature - defining the standards of evidence or the structure of a court system or legislative procedures. But these should always be seen as creating the most efficient, least oppressive machinery that is needed to support minarchy. All other laws should be about immorality. Law divorced from morality is just a gigantic club awaiting the hands of any tyrant or any well-intentioned idiot that walks by and picks it up.

I would comment that morality is the base of legality and Libertarianism can easily go astray without that moral base of rational-egoism. Some things are immoral but should not be illegal but there should be no acts that are illegal yet moral. The trick here is not to go searching for plausible examples or quirky exceptions like the unlicensed driver, but rather to know that we need to work out the guiding principles and then apply them as rigorously as we can. And the only way to separate that which is immoral, but should be legal is the set of principles bound up in the concept of individual rights. (I know, I'm a broken record :-)

p.s. The unlicensed driver is only illegal when driving on commons - which complicates things that private roads would take care of. Also, does a person have a right to threaten other drivers, passengers and pedestrians with what is the equivalent of a loaded weapon while still too inexperienced to do so safely? Like putting a loaded pistol in the hands of a young child or a drunk. Just some thoughts.

Post 41

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 11:46am

The solution to being a broken record is not a smiley, it is to address the arguments actually being made.

But first, let me address the fact the purpose of laws is to deal with crime, actual harm to individuals, not "immorality." There is, amidst other things, a discussion of the fundamental nature of law on this thread. This confused notion that, "laws should be about immorality," is indeed "just a gigantic club awaiting the hands of any tyrant or any well-intentioned idiot that walks by and picks it up."

No person here has made an argument that there should indeed be a positive law forcing people to call 911 in case of a crime. A Minnesota law making failure to report a crime a misdemeanor was described by me as the least objectionable of laws, which implies, of course, that the law is indeed objectionable. Others seem to have missed or ignored that point.

A detailed argument has been made on this thread and elsewhere that the proper response of a minarchist state to those who refuse to participate in the legal system is to let them withdraw themselves from its protections if they wish. Unfortunately the only response to this argument so far has been one poster's admission of his inability, for whatever reasons, to refute it.

Post 42

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 12:28pm

A detailed argument has been made on this thread and elsewhere that the proper response of a minarchist state to those who refuse to participate in the legal system is to let them withdraw themselves from its protections if they wish. Unfortunately the only response to this argument so far has been one poster's admission of his inability, for whatever reasons, to refute it.

Really, Ted?

The ONLY response was "...one poster's admission of his inability, for whatever reasons, to refute it"?
That was "...the only response to this argument so far..."?

I saw my post #17, that follows your post, but I did not see any admission of inability on my part. If you are referring to post #17 you are badly mistaken, if you are referring to another post, please specify.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 1/10, 1:43pm)

Post 43

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 12:37pm

Teresa, it is simply a 'worse-case scenario' after which the author still agrees it isn't criminal.

Post 44

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 12:40pm

Right.

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 12:47pm

Steve, I'm confused. I thought we were all agreeing that you cannot legislate morality, you can only legislate against the use of force. If you can legislate morality, then are we not back to Ayn Rand's "species solidarity" in which the man who was watching the boy bleed to death after cutting off his foot would be immoral? His actions were deplorable; Rand says they are the actions of a psychopath; but you thanked me for admitting that I discovered she said you cannot do what you are now advocating we do. Unless I misunderstand "All other laws should be about immorality"? Wouldn't it be "immoral" to let that boy bleed to death?

Post 46

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 1:09pm

Ted said in post #41, No person here has made an argument that there should indeed be a positive law forcing people to call 911 in case of a crime. A Minnesota law making failure to report a crime a misdemeanor was described by me as the least objectionable of laws, which implies, of course, that the law is indeed objectionable. Others seem to have missed or ignored that point."

But Ted said this here, "If I could find a way to formulate a proper rule that would criminalize stepping over a dying person without at least contacting the authorities, or doing the minimum possible, like moving a stroller out of traffic, I would happily do so."

Ted, I can see that you left yourself some wiggle room where you said, If I could formulate a proper rule..." Just as you left a tiny bit of wiggle room by saying "least objectionable." But I think it would be better if you were as clear and straight forward as Luke on this and just say that no one has the right to force another to call 911.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 1/10, 1:42pm)

Post 47

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 1:34pm

Curtis,

The principle that one should not initiate force IS a moral principle - it is THE moral principle at work in deciding what should be legal and what should not.

You actively use the principle to create the law. Other principles can come into play, but they can never override that principle.

You will end up observing that all things in the law relate to morality. You will end up observing that all things that are immoral are not illegal - only some.

If you find an action that is illegal but it isn't immoral, it might be time to take a close look at the issues involved.

Post 48

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 1:45pm

This discussion reminded me of a passage from AYN RAND: RUSSIAN RADICAL that might be of interest. I don't know where the Peikoff or Branden quotes originate. If anyone knows the source of the Peikoff quote, or the context, I'd appreciate it.

"And while Rand did not deny the legitimacy of charity as a means of helping those who were unfortunate victims of circumstance, she most certainly did not give enough attention to the issue of private, voluntary assistance in human affairs. Typically, Objectivists would answer those who inquired about the plight of the poor and the handicapped, with a flippant, 'If you want to help them, we will not stop you.'

"These flashes of insensitivity cannot be taken completely out of context. In Rand's opinion, the institutional poor were a consequence of statist economy. In Peikoff (1987bT, questions, period 1) argues too that if people were to let orphans starve in a genuinely free society, they would be so malevolent and corrupt that freedom could not last for any length of time. Indeed, voluntary mutual aid has survival value (N. Branden, 1983b, 225n). Rand recognized that a rational individual never forgets the fact that life is the source of value, that there is 'a common bond among living beings,' and that other individuals are potentially capable of achieving the same virtues of character."

[I'm guessing that last line is a reference to the "species solidarity" quote from VOS.]

Post 49

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 2:09pm

Stepping over a crime victim is a separate matter from dealing with the institutional poor, is it not?

Post 50

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 2:26pm

I'm thinking of the overall absraction of the quote, the idea that "they would be so malevolent and corrupt that freedom could not last for any length of time," a sentiment that could incorporate the instutional poor and the emergency situations being discussed.
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 1/10, 2:27pm)

Post 51

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 3:13pm

Well, I think that the issue of the poor is a potentially open-ended one. There's no way to deal with a government caused collapse thru normal personal charity.

But the question of reporting a crime is inherently different. There is no question of aid other than the minimal effort for the moment of crisis. You are not being asked to house or feed the victim, just maker a phone call, take some short term action. I have had to call 911 once in my life when a neighbor's wife shot him. When my boyfriend was shot on the street in a botched car-jacking a woman who was apparently a hooker called the police and stayed with him until they arrived. I would have been happy that she just call 911. I don't see how the lifelong burden of being forced to pay for the care of the poor compares in any way with immediate civil responsibility to report a crime.

Post 52

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 3:30pm

Now Joe, that is exactly where I tried to steer this thread with the "species solidarity" quote. What do you do with that "solidarity", if its purpose is the survival of freedom, if you don't look at "morality" as Steve has told us to do, and decide whether prevention of such malevolence is or is not a use of the state to control people who ought to be free to be what they want to be?

Post 53

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 3:35pm

It's easy to make a substitution: "In Peikoff (1987bT, questions, period 1) argues too that if people were to refuse to call 9-11 for others in an emergency in a genuinely free society, they would be so malevolent and corrupt that freedom could not last for any length of time."

Rand made a statement more specifically geared to emergencies: "that "the men who accept that dichotomy but choose the other side, the ultimate products of altruism's dehumanizing influence, are those psychopaths who do not challenge altruism's basic premise, but proclaim their rebellion against self-sacrifice by announcing that they are totally indifferent to anything living and would not lift a finger to help a man or a dog left mangled by a hit-and-run driver (who is usually one of their own kind.)"

Reminds me of the Seinfeld finale example, the "good samaritan" law trial. It's also been portrayed in film, THE BAD SEED," I think, where someone is dying, and the girl is sitting there, and could easily pass the woman her pills, but refuses not to, watching intently instead. While fictional, those examples ARE sadistic and psychopathic, respectively. In the Seinfeld example, the characters stand there, laughing while filming the incident. Certainly not "benevolent," no "species solidarity," and an extreme example of Rand's statement. I don't think a "Samaritan law" is the answer myself (blacklisting and ostracism might be a better answer), but I think Peikoff is dead right, and Rand re the psychopath descriptive examples like that, if everyone acted that way, and if that were the case, no law would be enough to save the society. (Would love to see that enforced on a large-scale.) Fortunately, not everyone acts that way, even if there are extreme cases like the Kitty Genovese incident.

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 1/10, 3:37pm)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 1/10, 3:38pm)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 1/10, 3:38pm)

Post 54

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 3:43pm

Joe,

Sciabarra's endnoted the citations you posted. The quote ending with "we will not stop you" comes from Branden's essay, Collectivized Ethics essay, page 80 of VOS, wherein Branden wrote,

Once when Barbara Branden was asked by a student: "What will happen to the poor in an Objectivist society?' -- she answered: 'If *you* want to help then, you will not be stopped."
[skip]
"Only individual men have the right to decide when or whether they wish to help others. . ."

The quote ending with "the same virtues of character" comes from Rand's Ethics of Emergencies, pgs 46-47 of VOS, wherein she wrote:

"What, then, should one properly grant to strangers? The generalized respect and good will which one should grant to a human being in the name of the potential value he represents -- untill and unless he forfeits it."

You're right about the species solidarity quote. It's on p 47.

All this seems fairly tangential to the issue here.

Jordan

Post 55

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 3:46pm

Thanks, Jordan. I know the BB quote, but not the Peikoff or NB quote. Barbara's quote has been well-advertised.

Tangential? I don't think so, given the relevance of Peikoff's quote.

Post 56

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 3:57pm

Hi Joe,

The Peikoff reference is listed in Sciabarra's endnotes.

It's tangential in that no one is disputing that it is moral to call 911 when someone needs it. What is in dispute at this point (but barely) appears to be whether, under Objectivism, the government may in any way impose some legal repurcussion on someone who refrains from making that call.

Jordan

Post 57

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 4:25pm

Well my apologies, then, Jordan. I've lost track of the many arguments, since the topic seems to be spreading from thread to thread. Just making an observation is all, and thought others might appreciate the quote. (I have no intention of attempting to solve that legal dilemma for anyone here.)

(RE the Peikoff quote source: I found it now, thanks. I was looking under the book references, not tapes. For anyone interested, it's from OBJECTIVISM: THE STATE OF THE ART.)
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 1/10, 4:27pm)

Post 58

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 5:59pm

I don't understand the relevance of spreading the question from how do we deal with rare but actual occassions of depravity, which do occur, and the idea that all of society would fall apart if everyone was like this. We don't let the fact that society would fall apart if everyone were, say, an arsonist make us say that we can't address the issue of arson.

There are indeed acts of depraved indifference. Maybe they mostly can't be proven, but when they can, is society (are other people, is the state) still require to extend its protections to that person? That's a well defined question. I don't think the rest of us are the slaves of the non-reporters.

I think I have offered a non-coercive mechanism by which the rest of us who participate in our own collective defense can let those who show they don't want to do so opt out.

What is wrong, if anything, with my opt out system? Is it coercive? I don't think so. Is it incapable of objective execution? I'd like to see some possible counterexamples.

Post 59

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 6:15pm