Photo - child stalked by vulture

Bill,

In my short story, force was initiated (brute takes food), just not against me (not MY food). So, in effect, I'd be taking the (natural) law into my own hands.

=====================
Fine, but this sounds to me like retaliatory force.
=====================

Bill, isn't there supposed to be a dilemma here? I mean, the brute whose skull I'm cracking didn't do anything wrong TO ME. How would I be justified in acting as judge, jury, and executioner over his life then? What gives ME the right to hurt someone who hasn't taken any action to hurt me first?

=====================
Why do you refer to this as the "initiation" of force and not retaliatory force? What am I missing?
=====================

See above.

Ed

Post 81

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 1:01am

Jon wrote:

> Compelling me to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I believe in that.

I find this phrase interesting. The concept of compelling a person to be responsible, truthful and just is an interesting one. About as interesting as strapping a person to a torture machine and compelling him to become the dictator of the United States.

All of you people who think you know what is best for me and are prepared to impose your views on me by force, I have only one thing to say. GET OUT OF MY WAY!

Post 82

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 1:06am

Reclamation Warning: This post reclaims the original topic. You guys may want to skip it and continue your glorious hijacking of this thread.

Oh my, did I miss a lot.

If I happened upon a man photographing this scene and then walking away, I wouldn't harm the man; I would help the child. (Bill D.)

What an odd way to put it, Bill. It never occurred to me (when I agreed with Ted) to harm the man instead of helping the child; I kind of assumed that everyone would understand the two actions go hand in hand. Why the "either/or" implication?
Actually, forget that question...it doesn't matter now, as both 1) harming the photographer and 2) helping the child have been shown to be in direct conflict with the principles of Objectivism. Harming the photographer is emotionalism at work, and not at all necessary in helping the child--- I can't argue with that. Of course, helping the child, in any way, constitutes rank altruism, and of course, none of us want to be guilty of that...and that was actually the part I didn't fully understand. I always believed that this statement by Jonathan

"...a failure to act when there is no clear danger to oneself is certainly depraved and despicable..." (Jonathan F.)

was in line with Objectivist principles; if it is not, then I stand corrected.

Of course, now I have to wonder...what was the purpose of this thread again? Why were any Objectivists discussing this picture at all? Why post a picture that is nothing but an appeal to rank emotionalism? Shouldn't one of the jack-boots have come out of the gate at the start of this thread with a post like, "Why are we looking at this? Why do we care?" Wouldn't that have been more appropriate? Or do the soldiers stand at the ready, prepared to leap into action to correct the weak-minded when they post thoughts that have not been properly checked against the rules of OPAR? Either way, I ain't fallin' for that anymore...I'm going to avoid threads that are clearly...traps.

Was wondering when someone was going to point out the rank emotionalism being so sacredly invoked here.......(Rev)

Any trace of rank emotionalism in me has now subsided, and is now safely tucked away, (hopefully never to be heard from again, at least publicly.)

Now, I must go and reread that old thread about the newborn thrown in the dumpster, so I can study how to properly form rational arguments as to why that can be perfectly justifiable...

Erica

(tirelessly working on gaining her Objectivist stripes)

(Edited by Erica Schulz on 8/07, 5:14am)

Post 83

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 1:10am

Hey Erica:

Isn't Objectivism fun! :-(
--
Jeff

Post 84

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 1:26am

Jeffery,

You wrote, �All of you people who think you know what is best for me and are prepared to impose your views on me by force, I have only one thing to say. GET OUT OF MY WAY!�

Do you accept Bill�s right to enter and use your land against your objections for the purpose of mounting a defense against an invader?

Bill is prepared to do it to you, by force.

Post 85

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 1:42am

Erica, you seem to be misunderstanding some of the terminology. First, emotionalism does not mean having emotional responses or feeling anger or sympathy or anything else. Emotionalism is elevating emotions over reason and rational arguments. Emotionalism is a process of substituting emotions for reasons. I'm perfectly okay with people saying something like "I'd be so angry with this guy, I'd feel like killing him!". That's just strong emotions, assuming they don't act on it. But when they say "I feel this way, and that make me justified in killing him", then you've got emotionalism. You have people replacing arguments with emotions, and discarding principles in favor of whims. It's a complete subversion of reason.

So hopefully you do safely tuck away your emotionalism, as it is just a form of irrationality. But don't think that means suppressing your emotions or even hiding them, since that would be a different kind of irrationality.

You also seem to misuse the term altruism. Altruism is not about helping other people or feeling sorry for them. Altruism is a moral theory that demands your own life as a sacrifice to others. In this case, the altruist would say that you need to help the child, or you forfeit your rights. The altruist would say the child's need is a claim on your life, and you have no choice but to help. The altruist would start with the unquestionable premise that you are morally obligated to help, regardless of the cost (or even proportional to the cost).

I haven't seen anyone here argue that helping the child would be wrong according to Objectivism, or that it would be an act of altruism. It isn't the case. But if ever helping someone out is your definition of altruism, you're giving far, far too much credit to that moral system. It's not fundamentally about helping others. It's about sacrifice of yourself.

An Objectivist could certainly point why we should help the child under many circumstances, as most of the people here have assumed. The argument here is not about whether the action is moral or not. The argument is about the standard of morality. An Objectivist could say that the photographer helping the child out is pursuing his own rational self-interest. The altruist would ignore that, and claim that he has no choice but to help the child, and any gains would be subtracted from the moral worth.

If you treat every act of generosity or kindness as being an act of altruism, you'll be stuck trying to balance altruism and Objectivism. You'll have defined Objectivism as only those acts that benefit yourself and never anyone else, and altruism as any act that benefits other people, and you'll work to have a little of each in your life. But Objectivism is not like that. By understanding the harmony of interests between people, we recognize the value of other people, and understand that in many cases, enriching those around us also enriches us. There is no conflict.

But altruism creates a conflict. It puts the needs of others ahead of your own life. It offers obligations and threats. It pits everyone against you, and demands that you sacrifice yourself to resolve the conflict. The only reason it has any good publicity at all is that it claims that all actions that benefits others must be based on altruism. It takes credit it doesn't deserve. Suggesting that helping a starving child is altruistic is just encouraging that deceit.

Post 86

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 2:03am

Ted,

Offensive title:
"Never Mind the War, Johnny, Just Repeat Your Mantras". Despite your disclaimer, I read this as saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is just repeating mantras, unable to think in a new context.

But there are other places where instead of making an argument, you make an accusation. For instance in post 17: "The non-initiation of force principal is not by itself a contextless absolute, Bill". Not only did Bill not say it was, but you didn't provide a reason for why it doesn't apply in this situation. You substituted an accusation for an argument.

Another title I find offensive is "The Reliance on Words and Not Action is Prayer, Not Objectivism". I have no idea who you are aiming that at, although many of the follow up posts seem to take think this is really a debate. But reading the rest of your post, you don't make any clarification. Again, it's just an accusation.

And then you quote Jon saying "It's the typical libertarian worship of the principle of non-initiation of force divorced from its context." which again substitutes an accusation for an argument.

And then you follow it with "That one must refrain from using deadly force in a lawless war zone at one's own judgement is a delusion open only to those who have never had to defend themselves or others when no other person is there to do it for them.". First, who has argued that we can't use deadly force in a war zone, or that we can't go with our judgments. I only saw people like myself argue that your standard for making that judgment was not simply inadequate, but wrongheaded. But you offer this false choice between killing anyone you feel like in a war zone (or is it just irrational people?), or being pacifists. With the clear implication that those who don't agree with your shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach is a pacifist not living in the real world. I reject that alternative, and the mischaracterization of those who disagree with you.

Now you want me to concede that you said the suicide should be handled by the courts. I readily concede that, and thought I was sufficiently clear. If not, I hope nobody misunderstood my point. I'm not arguing that you want to do the killing yourself. I consider that a tangential point at best. My arguments involved the fact that you believe it is appropriate to kill these two kinds of people, both of which you've argued are irrational and thus a threat, and I have argued that while they may or may not be irrational (as both are possible), their irrationality has not been in any way a threat to your own life or others.

Post 87

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 3:23am

Bill, have you read Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto? In it he argues against the power to subpoena, and I generally agree with both of you. In the same chapter he also argues against the ability for police to hold suspects until trial, on the grounds that they have not yet been proven guilty. He does add a caveat that he would not have a problem with the holding, provided that if the accused was found not guilty, the individuals responsible for holding him would be held accountable for kidnapping or the like. What do you think about that?

Post 88

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 3:29am

Of Anarchy and Lifeboats and Cabbages and Kings

"Also, maybe he can explain why this happening in a "lawless area" has anything to do with it justifying an initiation of force. I can imagine a few answers, like rights are gifts from government, or the only justification for respecting rights is you might go to jail, but those seem like unlikely candidates." -Joe

This is the crux of the matter. I don't believe that rights are a gift from the government. I believe that a minimal state is necessary to instantiate political rights which are justified by argument but which are defended by force. I am not an anarchist, and I don't believe that political rights exist per se in a state of nature, but only where a minimal state - a polity - exists to enforce them. In the state of nature, each man must judge for himself. What is so hard to understand about this? This is not an ideal situation for me, as I have repeatedly said. But in a state of nature, I would not expect my knowledge of Rand to protect me and hence, yes, I do think that relying on her arguments alone is indeed a type of prayer and that people who keep saying - "but you're initiating force!" - while the bullets fly about them are being just plain silly. None of this was an ad hominem attack on anyone, I didn't call anyone names.

So far, you have not quoted my arguments and explained where I am wrong, you have characterized my arguments: "Remember, Ted's argument is that the photographer, by making a profit on the war, is fully complicit with the war." (No, I said he is complicit in the child's murder by making profit on a snuff film.) You have accused me of acting on fear and anger or judging people as dangerous due to my emotions. No, I judge someone who goes to a war zone to make a snuff film as a potential danger to anyone, and, in the lack of any state to protect me, reserve my right to make my own judgements as who is a danger and how to protect myself.

As for the suicide example, to "take you at your words" you did say that I felt entitled to kill such people. Only when challenged did you retreat and admit that, since a state exists under such circumstances, that I would submit judgement to the state. Let me say this. in a state of total anarchy, I would also reserve to myself the right to execute a would-be suicide - not out of anger or fear - but if I judged such a person to be a threat to myself or others.

The whole reason why we institute governments is to take the use of force out of the hands of individuals and to subject it to law. I am all for this. Those who are criticizing me for saying that in the lack of a government I would judge and act for myself seem to imagine that there never is or could be a state where governments don't exist.

Ted Keer

I tire of this repetition. I am a minarchist who believes that the right of judgement and self-defense are retained by the individual in a state of nature. I prefer civilization to the state of nature. I find suicides and snuff film photographers at least potential dangers to myself and others, and I hereby put everyone on notice that if civilization should fall, don't expect to come filming people die around me without running the risk of joining them. Until then, I'll call the police. If this is emotionalism, call me Tom Cruise on Oprah.

Post 89

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 3:54am

Jon asks:

> Do you accept Bill's right to enter and use your land against your objections for the purpose of mounting a defense against an invader?

Well, your question precludes the possibility that I might actually voluntarily offer my property in service of the cause, assuming that I and my property were also potential targets of the invasion. Thereby, eliminating the conflict.

But let's say that I did object to the military's use of my land for whatever reason. Then no, I don't think the military has a "right" to use my property any more than a castaway has a "right" to break into a house on an island looking for food. In either case, assuming that all alternatives were exhausted, the military or the castaway may deem it necessary to violate the rights of one party in service of something they judge to be more important, and both would be obligated to make amends, as best and as equitably as possible, after the crises was over.

As the property owner, if I cannot be persuaded to cooperate with the military force and I believe that my rights are being unjustly violated, then, reality being what it is, I have the same options that I do when a thug points a gun at me on the street and demands my wallet. I can try to defend myself and my property in the moment, possibly risking my life. Or I can acquiesce to the situation and attempt to seek redress at a later time.

By the way, in post #75, Bill did not agree that he had a "right" to enter and use land over the landowner's objection. That is a new wrinkle you introduce into your quote above that was not present in the scenario as previously framed back in post #73. This addition subtly but significantly changes the meaning and I doubt that Bill would agree or appreciate having it implied that he asserts a "right" to violate private property rights.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 90

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 4:02am

Jon wrote:

> Bill is prepared to do it to you, by force.

Bill and I have our differences, but if I were forced to choose anyone on this forum whom I would trust to exercise the use of force over me with considered foresight, responsibility and restraint, it would be him.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 91

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 5:44am

Joe,

Thanks for clearing those things up. I thought I did understand what "altruism" was in Objectivism. But then it was this quote, during this discussion, that confused me:

Is need a claim on our lives? Certainly it appears to be here. The child is in need, therefore we must help the child! This is altruism. Sure, you allow people to live their own lives for the most part. But as soon as 'need' comes around, our lives no longer belong to ourselves.

(I understand now that that paragraph was part of a larger argument against the idea that "if the child needs, and one refuses to help, then that person no longer has rights." I just read that post too quickly, and I took that paragraph on its own, not in the proper context, and understood it to mean it was altruistic to help the child in any case. The confusion was my error.)

First, emotionalism does not mean having emotional responses or feeling anger or sympathy or anything else. Emotionalism is elevating emotions over reason and rational arguments. Emotionalism is a process of substituting emotions for reasons.

Oh.

Well then, forget everything I said earlier...because you're right...I am clearly misusing that term. That is not how I feel at all! I do not try to use emotion to justify any action of mine; and I didn't in this thread.

In fact...to be clear...my post #82 was actually meant to be my gloomy acknowledgement that when you're striving to be rational person...you can't always get what you want. :-(

Hey Erica:

Isn't Objectivism fun! :-(
--
Jeff

(I think Jeff understood what I meant...)

Ok. I'm finished with not really adding anything useful to this thread.

Carry on, "use of force" hijackers!

:-)

Erica

Post 92

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 6:33am

Jonathan-
There is a difference between capturing and holding someone you know to be innocent, someone who to the best of your rational knowledge is guilty, and possible shades in between. I agree that - unlike now where the police are essentially above the law - monetary reparations should be made in cases where innocents are locked up. However, criminal charges (such as your example of kidnapping) should only be applied to police officers when there is willful intent or gross negligence in locking up someone who shouldn't even have been a suspect.

Post 93

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 6:47am

The arguments for subpoena power made on SOLOPassion and here would apply as well to other applications of government force such as compulsory jury duty, sequestering, coercive taxation, and military draft. The one thing never really made clear is where and why individuals draw the line at some of these compelled actions and not others.

To make it simpler though, I just want to know how broadly those supporting subpoena power really support it. Dramatic hypotheticals of murder and hangmen and some nasty person arbitrarily choosing not to testify are a refuge for subpoena advocates, an unlikely situation which does not represent the vast majority of cases where subpoenas are used.

A couple months ago I was subpoenaed and spent two days gathering documents and giving a deposition for a civil case between a former client and one of their clients. I had no interest in the case, but would have happily done such research and deposition at my normal billing rate. As it was, I was compelled to do so for free, and essentially those two days of my productive life belonged to my former client's client (the side which got the subpoena). Was this moral for them to force me?

My case was far more representative of use of subpoena power than the hypothetical capital murder ones. It is widely used to force evidence gathering, depositions or testimony in civil cases; even in criminal cases, murder cases are a small minority. So for those advocating subpoena power, do you support it as broadly as it is used now? Only in criminal cases? Murder cases? Capital murder cases? Why do you draw the line where you do?

Post 94

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 8:08am

Bill, isn't there supposed to be a dilemma here? I mean, the brute whose skull I'm cracking didn't do anything wrong TO ME. How would I be justified in acting as judge, jury, and executioner over his life then? What gives ME the right to hurt someone who hasn't taken any action to hurt me first?

What gives the agents of the criminal justice system the right to hurt someone who hasn't taken actions against them? You're retaliating on behalf of another person who is himself a victim. Why on earth did you think that Objectivism prohibits retaliatory force on behalf of others or that there's any kind of a "dilemma" there?!

- Bill

Post 95

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 8:11am

Aaron:

The arguments for subpoena power made on SOLOPassion and here would apply as well to other applications of government force such as compulsory jury duty, sequestering, coercive taxation, and military draft. The one thing never really made clear is where and why individuals draw the line at some of these compelled actions and not others.

I'm beginning to think that objectivists are over-rationalizing the NOIF principle and not making honest intellectual distinctions between the ability to find volunteers for the establishment of justice and emergency situations.

Objectivism clearly makes a case for an emergency situation as Jon L. points out. How can any objectivist here claim that an emergency situation is ok, and that we can make a caveat to a principle given a specific context of reality like certain death from an initiation of force like for instance killing innocents in an aggressor nation? Or an army going onto someone's land to mount an offense? Yet act as if we can not apply the same emergency principle to any other similar situations where someone intitiated force? Who is being inconsistent here?

Now let's take each of Aaron's question of where I draw the line.

Aaron I draw the line at an emergency situation, just as objectivism clearly makes some cases for an emergency situation for war.

The first one, subpoena powers, where do I draw the line? Obviously a reasonable standard with an open and transparent due process must be applied (as it is now) and should only be compulsory when the witness refuses to voluntarily hand over evidence, which that evidence can prove someone's innocence or guilt, i.e. an emergency situation that arose from an initiation of force.

A military draft? Not necessary as we have enough volunteers willing to serve. Draftees are not even good soldiers and tend to do more harm than good. When should we ever have a draft? When there is an emergency situation, and there aren't enough volunteers, and the threat of a nation's extinction is at hand. What is that line? An emergency situation.

Compulsory jury duty? Again, I draw the line when no one will come forward and volunteer, i.e. emergency situation.

Coercive taxation? Again, when no one will come forward and voluntarily pay taxes. What is that line? An emergency situation.

Unless objectivists can explain to me why it is ok to use compulsory force in a wartime emergency situation, then any emergency situation where the response is an initiation to force must be valid, if objectivists want to be logically consistent that is.

Post 96

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 8:15am

Bill:

What gives the agents of the criminal justice system the right to hurt someone who hasn't taken actions against them?

Bill, what gives a nation acting in self-defense the right to kill innocent civilians who haven't taken actions against them'? What gives an army a right to hurt a farmer by taking access to his farmland to mount a defense?
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/07, 8:18am)

Post 97

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 8:21am

What an odd way to put it, Bill. It never occurred to me (when I agreed with Ted) to harm the man instead of helping the child; I kind of assumed that everyone would understand the two actions go hand in hand. Why the "either/or" implication?
There isn't any. I wouldn't harm the man, because he didn't violate anyone's rights. All he did was take a picture. I would help the child, if I could, out of respect for the life of another human being.
Actually, forget that question...it doesn't matter now, as both 1) harming the photographer and 2) helping the child have been shown to be in direct conflict with the principles of Objectivism. Harming the photographer is emotionalism at work, and not at all necessary in helping the child--- I can't argue with that. Of course, helping the child, in any way, constitutes rank altruism, and of course, none of us want to be guilty of that...and that was actually the part I didn't fully understand.

I wouldn't say that helping the child is an example of altruism, unless it constitutes an act of self-sacrifice, which it wouldn't in that situation. Harming the photographer violates his rights.

- Bill

Post 98

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 8:40am

Jeffery,

Then Bill would do it to you, with �Jefferey, I �deem it necessary to violate [your] rights� on his lips, and not �Jeffery, the government has the right to do this to you.� OK. Cold comfort, though, no? Bill is still going to order his squad to kill you and drag your body off if you don�t vacate.

I also asked Bill:
�And you DO accept the justice of killing innocents in the course of responding to an attack by a foreign power?�

He answered,
�One should never deliberately target innocents. To do so is to commit a war crime. If innocents are killed by bombs not targeted against them but against the enemy, then their deaths are on the head of the enemy.�

So, he �accept[s] the justice of� it. You, and even Bill, might think it�s a vital philosophical point to distinguish between �the justice of� killing innocents in the course of targeting the enemy, vs. �the right� to do so, but I doubt it ranks as all that important a distinction if you are the dead innocent.

Post 99

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 9:08am