RoR: Forum

Ted,

I much of what you said in the post above, but I'd make the distinction differently. You said, "A law is not just something passed by a legislature. Things like legislative acts establishing socialized medicine are not properly laws at all. One doesn't commit the crime of private medicine. Such laws treat non-crimes as crimes and non-criminals as criminals."

Law IS something passed by a legislature, but being passed doesn't make it constitutional, or well written, or objective, or consistent with individual rights. Passed law can be bad law in many ways.

Laws that treat acts a person has a right to take as crimes, and people who have violated no ones rights as criminals are bad law - but it is on the books and is being enforced and should be repealed - they are laws.

Post 21

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 10:56am

In post 13 Ted referred us to another thread with excellent content.
------------

In that thread, Ted says, "Objective law is defined principled law uniformly applied." The word 'principled' covers more territory than just individual rights. Objective law could ignore or violate individual rights. It would, in that case, be bad law, but it could be 'objective' rather than 'subjective.'

These elements are what Kramer would refer to as Ontological dimensions of 'objective' - 'Mind-Independence' (existence exists independent from the mind), and 'Determinate Correctness' which refers to the possibility of the law being defined so as to contain solutions that are just, and to 'Uniform Applicability' rather than capricious, or subjective application of the law.
---------------

And Ted quotes from the Ayn Rand Lexicon: "All laws must be objective (and objectively justifiable): men must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it."

Here 'objective' is about universality (that's implied by the assumption it will be predictable for this man or that man), and it is 'objective' in its being understandable to all, and that it will be predictable in its application. Note that that last is not about the law per se, but about the people and the system that apply it.
---------------

And from The Virtue of Selfishness: "The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas."

"Objective rules of evidence" is a reference to epistomological principles written as legal procedure to provide the most certainty that is reasonable in determinations of fact. Remember that a tyrant might be a stickler for fact while ignoring individual rights in application. Where Rand calls for 'objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures' to govern the relatiatory use of force, she is using the word 'objective' in a way that is not as related to determining fact, but rather in a way that refers to being just, uniform in application, reasoned from principles and not created from whim or superstition.
----------------

And, "When men are caught in the trap of non-objective law, when their work, future and livelihood are at the mercy of a bureaucrat�s whim, when they have no way of knowing what unknown �influence� will crack down on them for which unspecified offense, fear becomes their basic motive,..."

Here Rand's use of the concept 'objective' clearly is to distinguish from subjective, and to have 'objective law' be law that persists over time with uniform applicability.
------------------

The Objectivist Newsletter �Vast Quicksands,�
The Objectivist Newsletter, 28.

"It is a grave error to suppose that a dictatorship rules a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous, military precision. Such a rule would be evil, but almost bearable; men could endure the harshest edicts, provided these edicts were known, specific and stable; it is not the known that breaks men�s spirits, but the unpredictable. A dictatorship has to be capricious; it has to rule by means of the unexpected, the incomprehensible, the wantonly irrational; it has to deal not in death, but in sudden death; a state of chronic uncertainty is what men are psychologically unable to bear."

Here we see that Rand does equate overly strict laws, and the harshest of edits as evil, (at least when it comes from a dictatorship) but not nearly as evil as as laws that are applied capriciously. In this usage she equates "objective law" with know law applied consistently. And implied in that paragraph is the true distinction of rule of laws based upon individual rights (whether harsh, strict, or mild) in contrast with a dictatorship (rule that violates individual rights) and in contrast with the worst kind of dictatorship - the one that breaks men's spirits - the one where laws are subjective.
-------------------------

The Objectivist Newsletter �Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason,�
The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1962, 5.

"An objective law protects a country�s freedom; only a non-objective law can give a statist the chance he seeks: a chance to impose his arbitrary will-his policies, his decisions, his interpretations, his enforcement, his punishment or favor-on disarmed, defenseless victims."

Here non-objective law is law not applied uniformly because it was badly written. This is a case where law is so badly written that is is easy to apply it in a capricious fashion.
---------------------------

The Objectivist Newsletter �Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason,�
The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1962, 5.

"The threat of sudden destruction, of unpredictable retaliation for unnamed offenses, is a much more potent means of enslavement than explicit dictatorial laws. It demands more than mere obedience; it leaves men no policy save one: to please the authorities; to please-blindly, uncritically, without standards or principles; to please-in any issue, matter or circumstance, for fear of an unknowable, unprovable vengeance."

Here Rand is using non-objective to distinguish between unpredictable in application because of the way they are written from the objective in that they can only be understood to apply in the same way. There is a predictablity that carries into the future and it arise out the wording of the law. Note that a dictatorship, which is clearly not an Objectivist form of government, could none-the-less be ruled by objective law (but not Objectivist law).
----------------

The bottom line is that while objective law is a required element of a just society, it is not sufficient by itself. There is the further requirement that the objective law be based upon and consistent with individual rights.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 1/02, 2:20pm)

Post 22

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 10:59am

I would draw the analogy between non-objective art and non-objective law. The definition of painting is not "something" on a canvas. The definition of law is not "something" on the books. Is a "law" declaring that, say, pi equals three really a law at all? To me that's more like a prayer, or a work of fiction.

You might argue that laws against, say, public smoking, are borderline cases. But fundamentally, the law is something which, if one commits a crime, one breaks. I don't see any way in which a spending program like socialized medicine could really be called a law at all.

You seem to be saying that objectivity doesn't prevent tyranny because there can be tyrannical objectively stated legislative acts. Along with Teresa I question whether there actually are such purely objective legislative acts, but I also deny that they are actually laws in the relevant sense.

Post 23

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 11:26am

Ted,

*********
(Surely you don't check out what others have said first, before you vote?)
*********

I have something to confess. You caught me. I am one of those people so dependent on others for my own sense of self-worth that I am willing to go along to get along. If I were in Nazi Germany and Hitler marched by, my "Heil Hitler" would be one of the loudest, because I desperately need to feel the security of the tribe.

I would want everyone to know that, if we're exterminating people, that I support that (if everyone else does). In fact, my morality is completely malleable and susceptible to change at the drop of the hat depending on whoever is in my life at the moment.

Does that answer your question?

Ed

Post 24

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 11:58am

Ted,

If "law" is being used in the poll in the sense of being "just" -- as when Aquinas noted that unjust law is really only law "on paper" (with the insinuation that we should try to get away with breaking the law, if it is unjust) -- then I would vote "true."

Ed

p.s. I rewarded you (with 6 shiny, new Atlas points) for submitting the link to the book: Objectively Speaking. I saw, when I meticulously followed your directions, that this poll question comes right out of the "Objective Law" chapter heading in that book.

Post 25

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 12:09pm

You would vote, or you did vote?

Tricksy, Ed. Tricsky.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/02, 12:12pm)

Post 26

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 12:14pm

Deleted

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 2:23pm

Ted,

I will vote, but you have to promise me that you will not strictly and severely reprimand me for voting (after checking out what others have said first).

It could send my self-esteem in a vicious, downward spiral ending up with me roaming the streets as a philosophical bum ...

[It's cold on the streets of St. Paul. A lone man in a trench-coat tries to keep warm by setting a small fire in a garbage can. A couple walks by ...]:

"Excuse me, sir, but do you have any ..." the bum says. The man cuts him off, "No. I do not have any spare change."

"No ... no ... you do not understand me. I am a philosophical bum. I'm not looking for spare change or a handout", says the bum.

"Well, what the hell are you looking for then?"

"Do you, do you have any "truth" you could spare? I'm not real picky, it could be metaphysical or man-made -- I don't care. Just give me some truth."

"Are you crazy?"

"Well, how about some axioms, then? Do you have any of that?"

"You are crazy."

"No, no, no. I'm just philosophically starving over here. Hey man, you got ... you got any ... syllogisms?"

[The man grabs his wife by the arm and hurries away. The bum goes back to warming his hands in the garbage bin fire, waiting patiently for any other passersby.]

***************************
This illustration was brought to you by Ed Thompson. If you have been moved by this story, please send in your philosophical donations by calling 555-555-5555. Visa and MasterCard are accepted. You are important and so is your thinking. Please be generous with the truth -- of which you are in possession. There are people out there in grave need.

Post 28

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 2:33pm

Ted, you were kind enough to tell me to "...be careful to note that there is a difference between 'objective law' as in an objective system of jurisprudence and 'an objective law' as in a well defined act of legislation."

But that isn't as helpful as you intended. Afterall, you said in an earlier post the it would be important to define "law" before we went further. And I had asked in a still earlier post if you would be so kind as to explain how you are using "objective" in this context.

So, here we are. No agreed upon definition for "objective" or "law" which means I'm underwhelmed with the value of your cautionary note :-)

Post 29

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 5:24pm

Deleted

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 5:53pm

Ted,

I did read your post #18 on the definition of law. You can tell by my disagreement as seen in post #20. Maybe you didn't read post #20.

And I read the thread on Greatest Inventions - where you were discussing objective law - this is the reference you provided in your post #29. You can tell I read it by the extensive quotes that I make from one of your posts in that thread (see all of the quotes in my post #21 above).
-------------

So the bottom line is that I followed all of your links, read all the posts, considered the arguments and I still disagree with your redefinition of law, which I do not believe makes sense or is in the least bit usable. And I still believe that objective law is but one ingredient required for achieving and maintaining a just society - the other being that those objective laws be based upon individual rights (that condition is not guaranteed just because the law is objective).

It will help if you read my replies before sending me on more reading trips. :-)

Post 31

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 6:21pm

Deleted

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 7:11pm

Ted,

Just responding to your post #19. I fully understand and stick to dictionary definitions when I am posting, but I am also always aware that there are both denotations and connotations that may be associated with individual words. Thus there may be other implications to answering this question simply 'true or false'.

I've gathered since, from reading Ed's posts #21 that the actual question was taken from a chapter in "Objectivist Thinking". Thus my suspicion that it might have been an example of "baiting" is most likely inaccurate. I'll go back and check the links for enlightenment.

Brgds,
jt

Post 33

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 8:07pm

"I would suspect this question to be from someone baiting Objectivists, and hoping for 'yes' answers, in order to mount an anti-Objectivist argument."

Yes, exactly one hundred and eighty degrees accurate!

I'd rather people vote based on their "sense of life" than on their knowledge of who said what. But I'd rather people read that essay. Be aware only about 1/4 of it is available on google books.

Objectively Speaking was published Feb 2009. The text is apparently highly redacted.
(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/02, 8:18pm)

Post 34

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 9:06pm

Ted,

No, I did NOT think you were being insulting - I assumed you were offering me, and others, an interesting and worthwhile insight. But it struck me as humorous that you were offering me this insight while apparently not noticing that I was still not in agreement with your use of 'objective law.'

I disagree that because a law is objective that is also necessarily arising from individual rights. I believe that is adding more to the meaning of 'objective' in this context than is reasonable. And I disagree that bad laws are not laws.

So, there I was, smiling that you were offering me this insight relating to 'objective law' when we were not in agreement on either parts of that phrase :-)

I was being wry, not snide. I was not feeling under attack (but your description of me as having a bizarre tendency to see everything as an attack does feel like an attack... oh, does that mean you were right? :-)

Post 35

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 10:13pm

Deleted

Sunday, January 3, 2010 - 12:03pm

Ted,

It was not my intention to focus resentment on you. I wasn't attacking you. My characterization as "wry" should be seen as "ironic" and not "sardonic, satirical, mocking, or sarcastic." Honest.

As to the definition of law... you are taking "crime" to be prior to law. That is an area where we disagree. There are actions that should be illegal - they are moral crimes. When a law is passed making such an action illegal that creates the definition of a legal crime.

Hopefully, we start with individual rights and from that ethical position begin to craft the law to support those rights. Actions that are violations of individual rights become the subject of laws and thereby become definitions of criminal acts - crimes.

I can say that "it is a crime" that more people aren't upset over ObamaCare... but that shouldn't be taken literally as in "a legally definition of a criminal act." We all understand that it isn't a legal crime but rather a figure of speech or a moral assessment of our culture's lack of political understanding.

Ted, you said, "I don't see any way in which a spending program like socialized medicine could really be called a law at all." Your words. I say that if it passes, it will be a law - a bad law. ObamaCare, should the bills passed by both houses be reconciled and the president signs the resulting bill, it will be law in every sense of the word. But it will also be a very bad law. (And hopefully it will be rejected as unconstitutional, or repealed by the next congress. But until one of those happens it will be law.) Unless I have misunderstood you, your definition rules out ObamaCare as a law because it is does not address what you define as a crime. I think you are mixing up the moral and the legal uses of the word "crime."

You defined law as "Laws are the rules by which the government identifies what crimes and a torts are, mandates how the state will identify criminals, and judge the existence of torts, and how it will punish criminals and redress damages." The problem with that definition is is the possibility that people can think crime ("legally defined crime") might precede the law that defines it as crime. It is a moral crime to intentionally kill someone unless it is in self-defense. But it is not a legal crime unless we have passed laws that define murder.

Try this instead, "Laws are the rules by which the government defines what actions shall be considered crimes or torts, mandates how the state will identify criminals, and judge the existence of torts, and how it will punish criminals and redress damages." (That doesn't address all of the administrative law or constitutional law, but it addresses the issue we are having.)

---------------

I said, "I disagree that because a law is objective that is also necessarily arising from individual rights. I believe that is adding more to the meaning of 'objective' in this context than is reasonable." And you said that was confused. I don't think it is... especially in the context where it I said it. But I'll try it another way.

Do you believe that a law that is objective is, by the very fact that it's objective, always going to consistent with individual rights? Is that necessarily part of what it means for a law to be objective?

Or, do you have a definition of what "objective" means when it is used as an adjective modifying "law"?

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 1/03, 12:13pm)

Post 37

Sunday, January 3, 2010 - 1:27pm

Hmmm -

Steve replied to Ted:

You defined law as "Laws are the rules by which the government identifies what crimes and a torts are, mandates how the state will identify criminals, and judge the existence of torts, and how it will punish criminals and redress damages." The problem with that definition is is the possibility that people can think crime ("legally defined crime") might precede the law that defines it as crime. It is a moral crime to intentionally kill someone unless it is in self-defense. But it is not a legal crime unless we have passed laws that define murder.

Actually, I'm thinking that's exactly how it works. "Crime" does precede the law, otherwise, there'd be no reason to create legislation covering it. Before computers, there was no such thing as electronic data theft. Laws against this action didn't arise until these actions occurred and caused innocent people harm. Legislators had to discover exactly what is involved with such an action; how it occurs, the potential of occurrence, extent of harm, etc. before it could outline laws prohibiting that action while not infringing on legitimate action.

Try this instead, "Laws are the rules by which the government defines what actions shall be considered crimes or torts, mandates how the state will identify criminals, and judge the existence of torts, and how it will punish criminals and redress damages." (That doesn't address all of the administrative law or constitutional law, but it addresses the issue we are having.)

Again, how can government design language meant to prohibit actions that haven't first been identified as causing harm?

Post 38

Sunday, January 3, 2010 - 2:30pm

Teresa,

The difference I'm making is between moral and legal. It is morally wrong to commit murder, but until a law is passed it is not a legal crime. The ethical is more fundamental than the legal and it comes first in practice.

If you want to call certain acts "crimes" based solely upon their moral properties, that's fine. But you will end up making logical errors when you conflate moral crimes with legal crimes. Those are two separate areas.

You should not create legislation without a good moral justification (for us Objectivists that relates to violations of individual rights). But until the law exists there is no legal crime.

Actions that have been identified as causing harm are the basis for proposing legislation. A legislator might say, "It is wrong that someone can spam people with unwanted email, that should be a crime." The word 'crime' has a moral meaning and it has a legal meaning and those two need to be kept separate. Spammers might be doing morally criminal acts, but until a law is passed, they can not be convicted of a crime - the entire machinery of juris prudence is helpless to protect your inbox until the "legal crime" has been defined which requires a law.

The very nature of the law is to serve as the concretization of moral principle into legal principle so that it can be acted upon - to give it structure (and to separate out those things that might be immoral, but should not be illegal).

Post 39

Sunday, January 3, 2010 - 4:22pm