How do you punish crimes that don't involve physical force if the government is only allowed to use retaliatory force against those who initiate force?
Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
I've mentioned it a few times before in various topics, but I want to address it now more directly, since this is an issue with Objectivism which really concerns me, and it seems to be THE singular, fatal flaw in Ayn Rand's system, and I was wondering if anybody here could provide any additional perspective on this point for me.
See, I've been reading a book titled "Without A Prayer - Ayn Rand And The Close Of Her System," by John W. Robbins, which basically goes through Ayn Rand's most prominent works and points out all the logical inconsistencies and self-contradictions in Objectivist philosophy. The book brings up many, many excellent points, but there is one very specific point in particular which I wanted to discuss, which is how exactly non-violent crime is to be punished without the use of initiated force on the part of the government. If one intends to actually attempt to build a society based on Objectivist principles, this would be an absolutely critical point to conclusively figure out.
Excerpt from the book:
---
"In her essay, "The Nature of Government," Rand [...] asserted: "Man's rights can be violated only by the use of physical force." Notice the "only": This statement logically implies that blackmail, fraud, perjury, pollution, breach of contract, embezzlement, misprision of a felony, misrepresentation, conspiracy, child neglect, adultery, libel, slander, and other actions correctly recognized as crimes, but which do not involve the use of physical force, are not violations of man's rights.
[...]
It is doubtful that government can exist without initiating some force. In addition to all the crimes listed [above], in punishment of which the government initiates force, there are procedural powers as well: subpoena, arrest, and detention pending trial. Neither a free society nor a government could survive without these powers of using force. Even Rand admitted that one of the primary functions of government is to settle disputes among its citizens, but she never showed how such disputes could be resolved without the powers of subpoena, laws against perjury, arrest, and injunctions, all of which are initiations of force."
---
With those two paragraphs, John W. Robbins essentially summed up what I think is probably the single biggest flaw in Any Rand's theory of government, and put into words an idea which I had been grappling with myself on an intuitive level, but lacked the language to adequately describe. Does anyone else have any insight or additional perspective on this issue?
You can read more of the book online here:
http://imgur.com/a/n2MfO/layout/vertical...
See, I've been reading a book titled "Without A Prayer - Ayn Rand And The Close Of Her System," by John W. Robbins, which basically goes through Ayn Rand's most prominent works and points out all the logical inconsistencies and self-contradictions in Objectivist philosophy. The book brings up many, many excellent points, but there is one very specific point in particular which I wanted to discuss, which is how exactly non-violent crime is to be punished without the use of initiated force on the part of the government. If one intends to actually attempt to build a society based on Objectivist principles, this would be an absolutely critical point to conclusively figure out.
Excerpt from the book:
---
"In her essay, "The Nature of Government," Rand [...] asserted: "Man's rights can be violated only by the use of physical force." Notice the "only": This statement logically implies that blackmail, fraud, perjury, pollution, breach of contract, embezzlement, misprision of a felony, misrepresentation, conspiracy, child neglect, adultery, libel, slander, and other actions correctly recognized as crimes, but which do not involve the use of physical force, are not violations of man's rights.
[...]
It is doubtful that government can exist without initiating some force. In addition to all the crimes listed [above], in punishment of which the government initiates force, there are procedural powers as well: subpoena, arrest, and detention pending trial. Neither a free society nor a government could survive without these powers of using force. Even Rand admitted that one of the primary functions of government is to settle disputes among its citizens, but she never showed how such disputes could be resolved without the powers of subpoena, laws against perjury, arrest, and injunctions, all of which are initiations of force."
---
With those two paragraphs, John W. Robbins essentially summed up what I think is probably the single biggest flaw in Any Rand's theory of government, and put into words an idea which I had been grappling with myself on an intuitive level, but lacked the language to adequately describe. Does anyone else have any insight or additional perspective on this issue?
You can read more of the book online here:
http://imgur.com/a/n2MfO/layout/vertical...
"A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises." -- "The Nature of Government" in The Virtue of Selfishness, page 130, 1st edition hard cover.
More deeply, Ayn Rand never said that her system was complete. Just the opposite: she identified several areas of legal theory and practice open to future jurisprudence.
Robbins also commits another fallacy. Words have meaning. Retaliation is not aggression. Government can exist without INITIATING force. Government's proper function is to hold a monopoly on retaliatory force.
Also, again, more deeply, Ayn Rand was explicit in choosing the name Objectivism for her philosophy. She did not call it Absolutism or Formalism or Deontology. Context matters. The "Terry Stop" is an example of police properly acting in a pro-active way, initiating a search of a pedestrian and finding him carrying a concealed weapon. The man was a known felon and was loitering in front of a jewelry store. Context matters. The rule that government cannot initiate force does not mean that the agencies of public protection must wait helplessly for the exact split second after which a crime has been committed.
---
A factual statement is a factual statement regardless of its source. If you intend to disprove Robbins' claims, then disprove them on the grounds of logical reasoning, not ad hominem.
Possession of a material object is physical, yes, but involves no force by itself. Physical force would come into play only if the possessor of the object tried to maintain possession through physical action. This also doesn't address non-physical products such as computer data or intellectual property.
And a broken promise is not a physical thing, therefore cannot be considered physical force, either. Also, I notice in that quote that Ayn Rand specifically used the phrase "unilateral breach of contract." How did she feel about breaches of contract which were not unilateral?
If we're going to insist that words have a precise meaning (a problematic claim in and of itself), we can't go around using slippery definitions and changing the meanings of words to suit our fancy. Tell me, was Ayn Rand using the word "force" in the connotative or denotative sense in that quote?
But regardless, fraud and breach of contract were only two of the items in the list. There's still blackmail, perjury, pollution, embezzlement, misprision of a felony, misrepresentation, conspiracy, child neglect, adultery, libel, and slander. I know Ayn Rand approved of adultery, but does she ever address any of the other actions in any of her writings?
Also, what does she say about subpoenas and injunctions?
Adultery is not a crime.
Since you can't derive 12 jurors or confronting your accuser or bail from natural rights- we design procedural rules to protect/guarantee your rights.
I could see a procedural obligation that you should notify someone if you are not willing or able to take care of your child or a child in your care. But there is no obligation short of contracting to care for another human. Same with association. You should not be made to associate against your will same with contract. You should not be compelled to contract. As you see the US has violated natural rights in passing laws that infringe your natural rights. It is immoral.
Your statement about child neglect is unclear. Are you saying it should not be considered a crime?
Having procedural rules to require x in cases where the parent cannot/will not care for the child I agree to. Not the same thing as you have a duty to the child you birthed or sired. I admit I'm fudging a little here on the procedural rules.
Also, we keep passing these "pile on" laws where we criminalize the same activity with multiple violations. Conspiracy and RICO law is outrageous.
If I lied to a police officer about something (the day was Thursday not Wednesday-that's how absurd it gets) but I did not commit murder, then you should not be able to convict me of perjury. Often these people are not even given a day in court. In most of these cases, the case is weak and they can't be convicted of an out and out crime.
"Perjury" is lying under oath and should be aggressively prosecuted in every case.
your second statement is correct. I was incorrect.
You say that a parent who cannot or will not care for their child should be required to go through a certain legal proceeding, but isn't that a form of government coercion and initiated force? Why should a parent be compelled to go through a court proceeding to shed responsibility for a person they supposedly had no responsibility for in the first place?
Also, how would you deal with child neglect that has already occurred, resulting in severe injury or death to the child? Suppose a mother decides to simply leave her six-month-old baby in a crib and then never feeds him or cares for him, causing him to starve to death? Does your claim that parents have no duty to care for their children mean that this mother could not be punished, and that she had committed no crime?
I agree with you that a single action should not count as multiple crimes, as well your comments about talking to police. That can be incredibly problematic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7n...
Just leaving a child on the side of the road is as bad as kicking an adult out of your car in the middle of a desert. Maybe they should simplify it so you can drop of a child at any hospital or school that's open. Clearly, though, just leaving a child alone with no responsible party in charge is tantamount to using force to harm another person.
You also get into civil matters like breach of contract. We don't jail people for these, but we use force to make the parties whole. Someone promises to build a building, but they only build half of it. The buyer refuses to pay. The court will decide a fair amount the buyer must pay for partial construction and force them to pay.
You also mention holding someone awaiting trial. Theoretically we only jail people who are not convicted yet if they are flight risk or they're refusing to stop the harmful activity. Such people should get a speedy trial to determine if the state can prove their guilt. If they were innocent and it's an honest mistake made following good practice, you can't condemn the gov't for holding them temporarily b/c it truly thought the suspect was initiating force.
The whole question is **whether the things we're talking about are initiating force**. Do you see Rand as saying it's okay to stop someone committing a strong-arm robbery but not a thief in the night?
Embezzlement can absolutely be considered theft, but I'm afraid I don't see how it could be either forceful or physical. Same goes for running a fake investment scam and pocketing the would-be investor's cash. That's absolutely a form of theft, but no physical force is ever involved.
Honestly, our definitions of the words "physical" and "force" both seem to be sliding around quite a lot. Are we even using precise definitions here, or are we just trying to twist the words to suit our purposes? If we are using precise and exact definitions, then what are those definitions? Because as far as I can tell, no consistent definitions are being applied...
As for breach of contract, you admit that the government uses force to deal justice to the injured parties, but you don't specify whether that force is initated or retalitory. And what if the party who is ordered to pay due compensation by the court refuses to do so? What if he or she simply decides to ignore the court's order? How do your force them to pay without the threat of criminal charges and potential jail time hanging over their head?
Anyway, I'm glad to see you haven't abandoned the forum completely, CG. You're one of the people I respect the most here. ;)
I'm not sure what the Ayn Rand view on this is, but to me their breaching and refusing to comply with the judgement is like stealing.
I'm glad you like my posts. I only check in occasionally now b/c too many people here are either negative toward me or negative toward the future of liberty.
If we say that a certain action constitutes theft (which is a violation of man's rights), but doesn't necessarily involve the use of physical force, then we must conclude that physical force is NOT the ONLY way to violate man's rights, and that men could potentially violate the rights of others using non-forceful, non-physical means. If it is possible for men to do such a thing, then we would also need to logically conclude that government must be be allowed to initiate force, and not just use force in retaliation against other force.
And I hear ya, I feel the same way at times. =/
Didn't you say that you were kind of liberal yourself, but open to new ideas?
The way I see the logic of it is Rand must have thought either that the non-forcible thief was indeed using force or that the gov't may rightfully initiate force. I'm pretty sure it's not the latter. Therefore, I think Rand viewed the non-forcible thief was indeed using force. That does not seem like a contradiction to me, though, if people's property are seen as an extension of themselves.
My view is not that government cannot punish a thief who steals without using physical force, but rather that logical consistency requires us to admit that physical force is NOT the only way to violate man's rights, and that government must occasionally initiate force in order to preform its essential functions.
In short, the government can and should punish a thief who steals using non-physical, non-forceful methods, but that punishing such a thief constitutes an initiation of force on the part of the government.
This assumption starts and ends wrong. Mans rights are not subject to even death, never mind threat of pain. No government can remove, or abolish "rights".
Government can limit the exercise of rights by law and threat of force, but the individual still retains the "right".
As I stated, men's rights cannot be violated, period. They can be suppressed, the exercise of the rights can be restricted and government can ignore them or claim they don't exist.
Like in the case of the right to life that is violated everyday with abortions. That practice violates all the rights of the child, but that defenseless child still retained all of it's rights, even into death.
Anyway, you've created a logical contradiction by saying that rights cannot be violated, but that abortions violate the rights of an unborn child. Can rights be violated or not? If rights cannot be violated at all, then you need to use a different word to describe what abortion does to the rights of an unborn child. Does it suppress those rights? Does it ignore them? Does it negate them? Let's be consistent in our vocabulary here...
Forgive my syntax error, it's a bit late for me.