Why is forced self-incrimination unconstitutional?

Hi Ted,

I can see how what I said Objectivism would say is (contextually) absolute, but how is it intrinsic?

And I'm not seeing sufficient parallel between compelled testimony and the cases of vigilantism, duels, and slavery. I think you pointed to those latter cases as examples of extreme (or costly or irrational or other?), and therefore unacceptable, applications of otherwise acceptable rights. I don't see how compelled testimony fits in that set.

Not that the label is important, and I truly mean no insult or offense by this, but your emphasis on cost-benefit considerations, coupled with what appears to be your less rigid view of rights, strikes me as pragmatic, or instrumentalist if you prefer.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 8/21, 3:05pm)

Post 21

Friday, August 21, 2009 - 3:15pm

Ted,

You would have to tell me more about how you see this issue as implying an 'intrisic absolutist' view of rights. I assume we are talking individual rights as opposed to legal rights - but I'm not sure, because you go on to talk of civil rights - which I understand to be a category of legal rights.

I think I understand how you are using the word 'intrinsic' - but I'm not sure, and I'm pretty much lost on the 'absolutist' part.
-------------

You said, "No one is required to defend your rights for you unpaid."

That is true because of the "unpaid" part - but those who are hired to work in branches of government related to the protection of rights, do have an obligation - it is the pay that makes a contractual arrangement and has nothing to do with a 'right to be have one's rights defended' - that WOULD be a false view of what is in the concept of individual rights.
-------------

You said, "Objectivism does not hold that since you have a right to self defense you have a right to vigilantism."

I guess that depends upon the meaning of "vigilantism" and the context. If the government isn't working, then yes, you do have a right to something that looks like vigilantism. But if government is working fairly well then anyone that attempts to exercise force against someone alleged to have violated the rights of another better be right. It is like someone doing a citizen's arrest. You can do that, but if the person isn't convicted following your actions, you may carry civil and criminal liabilities.
----------------

You said, "It doesn't hold that since you have the right to consensual acts, that two men have the right to duel. It doesn't hold that since you own yourself you can sell yourself into slavery."

I'm not sure that we don't have the moral right to duel (I know it is illegal and stupid). We have the legal right to get into a boxing ring to settle a conflict - which we have a moral right to do even though it is also stupid and is only different in degree (only on rare occasions will it be fatal). And, it isn't slavery if we choose it. Slavery, by definition isn't voluntary. Certainly we have the moral right, as adults, to enter into any voluntary agreement we want that does not involve violation of some third party's individual rights.

Post 22

Friday, August 21, 2009 - 4:19pm

The recognition that justice comes at a cost is not pragmatism as in arbitrary range-of-the-moment "let's throw the spaghetti and see if it sticks" action. It is just recognition of reality. Rand uses pragmatism to refer to such things as Nixon's wage and price freeze. You are using pragmatism in a broader conventional sense. The choice is not between absolute categorical imperatives on one hand and chaos on the other. Both Rand and I draw the distinction between natural and civil rights. We have the natural right to self defense. In order best to actually protect that right we forgo feud, vendetta, dueling and vigilantism and allow and expect the state to act on our behalf. We suffer the indignity of jury duty, of allowing the police to cross our land in hot pursuit, and the small possibility that we may some day be called upon to testify in court. That is a compromise we make in order to protect a higher value. We cannot expect the state to be the agent of our personal pride.

Steve, I see that you are trying very hard with your list idea. I am open to better solutions if they arise. But what your list amounts to is a list of state suggested potential future crime and murder victims. Being required merely to testify in court to the innocence of an accused man is not a violation of rights, but is a means of protecting them. The existence of a minimal state at minimal cost is not an affront to rights, but the proper way of securing them.

Post 23

Friday, August 21, 2009 - 5:52pm

Ted,

We both support minarchy. I believe that it can be funded voluntarily, but I have no objection to taxes as long as we are consistently moving to decrease the taxes to the lowest level needed to support individual rights. I recognize that success in this area will take time, will occur in stages, and we won't even know if it can be totally voluntary until we are at a place where taxes become very, very small and yet we are still supporting individual rights.

The same is true with jury duty or being a witness. If we need to do these to support individual rights, then we need to accept that cost as being less than any alternative more harmful to individual rights. That said, we need to look for all of the alternatives that move us in the direction of replacing laws compelling jury duty or being a witness - as long as we stay focused on ensuring that maximum support of individual rights.

Talking about my off-the-cuff list idea, you said, "...what your list amounts to is a list of state suggested potential future crime and murder victims." I assume you mean that once a person refuses to help out with jury participation or being a witness, that his placement on the list would make him vulnerable - he couldn't avail himself of a jury when it would benefit him or call witnesses to defend himself. But that would be fair, wouldn't it?

Sometimes the violation of an individual's rights is so great that one can NOT use the excuse of defending our structure or the nation's liberties - like the draft. That one is simple: You can't claim to protect freedom by enslaving people with a draft. I think we can find ways to make juries work without threats of jail - and I think we might be able to respect someone's desire to not testify - maybe not. But we should try.

Post 24

Friday, August 21, 2009 - 6:58pm

I didn't say it wouldn't be fair to the witnesses, no. I still would oppose it, since I do think it unfair to the accused. Indeed, if its unfair to force witnesses to testify, then its also unfair to hold the accused in custody, to search his property, and to summon jurors. Would you be willing to have refusal of a witness to testify be grounds for summary dismissal? It is a fantasy of mine that someday the largest class of victims of the state would be those forced to testify on behalf of criminal defendants.

My fantasy parliament would be to have some 45% minarchist conservatives like myself, 40% minarchist liberals like you and 10% Hamiltonians and 5% pacifists. There would actually be debate worth listening to.

Post 25

Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 2:06pm

"It really annoys me when people use Objectivism to say 'well, we can't prevent total mostrosity to a human being because his rights are not as important as keeping the government out of it.'"

Leonard Peikoff, Oct 27 '08 podcast

Post 26

Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 9:31am

Jordan, you asked somewhere if I support Good Samaritan laws. I note that Peikoff in his Dec 22 2007 podcast calls reprting a crime or a person in distress a moral obligation and says that anyone who wouldn't do so a psychopath.

Post 27

Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 11:05am