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

Opt-out is an awkward word, maybe default would be better. I think my argument is unique, so there isn't any language already existing that I know of in which to address it. I don't mean that someone would actively go down to the courthouse and say, by the way, even though I've been paying my taxes, I don't intend to call 911 if that damn minority down the block gets shot by his civil partner. What it is designed to address is the rare but actual case of depravity for those of us who think such an action should have a consequence.

Here's a concrete. I come home to my apartment. My neighbor has been shot and is bleeding, unable to move on my doorstep. I step over him, shut the door, and cook dinner. He lives, but suffers kidney failure due to blood loss and has to go on dialysis. He testifies that I saw him but did not report the crime. A trial is held on charges of depravity, I am found guilty and am declared an outlaw. For five years I cannot go to court and the police will not respond to an emergency call to respond to my household. I forfeit any taxes pain that year, since when I paid my taxes it was stated on my user agreement that I also had to call 911 or lose coverage. (Obviously there are issues like if I have children, but those are side issues.) I can't complain that the state is initiating force against me. If I want back in, maybe I could pay restitution according to some standard.

I suppose the same issue would arise for those who simply refuse to pay taxes. But that's an general issue for minarchists, not for me alone.

Post 61

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 6:54pm

Hi Ted,

Tell help moves things along. . .

First, it'd be difficult to figure out who the non-reporters are or would be so that the government knows which people to refrain from protecting. (I'm generally reminded of the The New Twilight Zone episode To See the Invisible Man.)

Second, it seems unfair to remove all protection from actual or would-be non-reporters, especially if they are paying to the government whatever else they owe.

Third, it does seem coercive to remove the Holocaust-survivor doctor for government protection were he to refrain from reporting his old Nazi aggressor's medical emergency.

Jordan

Post 62

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 7:26pm

Ted,

On the charge of depravity, you have put me in the awkward spot of defending the right to be depraved. It is like the free speech issue where the Jihadists get to teach the most hideous things, even to vulnerable minds, even when we know that eventually some of those minds will become bombs and kill innocents.

In both cases - the depraved person that doesn't call 911, and the cowardly Imam teaching Sharia - there is no initiation of force, fraud or theft (assuming the Imam isn't part of a conspiracy or terror group and is just a religious nut). So I don't see them as actionable under criminal law.

Maybe in a more civilized and free society we could form more complex contractual webs (think of homeowners' associations) where certain requirements are spelled out in order to retain a membership that has desired benefits. What is needed is to codify actions that result in an individual becoming an outcast, but not violating their rights.

I see this as a social/psychological/character issue that falls short of making the cut for legal action.

Post 63

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 7:36pm

Below is copy of a post I made on another thread and that Ted asked to be copied here. My response was to the last sentence in this post where Ted said, "If my system amounts to the initiation of force, I'd be interested in seeing an example.".
--------------------------

If your system takes money from someone to protect them (on the basis of individual rights) and then does not protect them because they failed some good Samaritan clause a politician cooked up (which you admit you are unable to forumlate) then it is a case of fraud or theft - a violation of individual rights.

You said, " ...by your actions, shown that you do not want to participate in the crime reporting system." Not true. Just as Luke said, not driving a rental car when the rent has been paid is not permission for the rental car people to weasel out on their part.

You said, "Perhaps upon a hearing a judge could say that unless you pay compensation, in recognition of your choice to opt out of the system you will not be able to call for police protection for a certain period."

So you want to take the tax dollars, then levy a fine ("compensation") based upon a crime that was not a violation of individual rights, and then deprive the person of the protection government was properly instituted for. You don't see any violation of individual rights in the fine?

Your proposition is just a form of "duty to the state" that is twisted around and limited so as to better appeal to libertarian sensibilities. But it is still an attempt to make people do things that are good for society at the expense of a strict and severe observation of individual rights.

Post 64

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 7:47pm

I've argued elsewhere that I believe the primary purpose of government is in deciding the appropriate use of force, and not necessarily the actual use of force to protect rights. That could be done privately, for instance. So I'm not opposed to the idea that a private police force could require certain conditions from its clients. These could include requiring them to report a crime, testifying against criminals in court, or any number of other conditions.

However, the one aspect of government that can't be privatized is the decision making process on the appropriate use of force. If the courts refused to hear a person's case, they would be leaving him with only two choices. Defend his rights as he himself sees fit, or don't defend his rights. If he decides to wield force himself, they'd have to allow it or they'd be initiating force themselves.

There's a strong case to be made that the government, when possible, should decide whether a use of force is appropriate beforehand, instead of after. This allows for less mistakes and a more objective process. It also allows for the extent of the use of force to be properly measured. It also allows those wielding retaliatory force to have confidence that their actions will be judged correctly instead of acting and finding out afterwards. In cases where the government cannot make the call afterwards, they have to decide whether the actions were reasonable, and not whether they actually agreed with them.

If the courts removed this capability from the "depraved" person, it would invite all of the mistakes that we try to avoid by deciding the use of force beforehand. Far from punishing the depraved person, it would punish anyone/everyone around him.

Unless of course the real intent is to allows anyone around him to abuse his rights while stripping him of the right to defend himself and his right. But we can't pretend that the government isn't initiating force at the point. Same with disallowing him to get a decision ahead of time. If the goal is to create opportunities to second guess him so he can be punished, it's just a less direct form of punishment. Murder is murder, even if you make the process more indirect. So is any rights violations.

On top of that, our current system uses taxation to fund the police. Removing one person from that system, while forcing everyone else to pay into it, sounds wrong on so many levels. First, it rewards the "depraved" by letting them out of the tax system, but not the virtuous people. But it also punishes the "depraved" by forcing everyone else into it. If it were all private, he could go to a competitor. But when government squeezes out any competitors, there's not many options left. It'd be like living in the Soviet Union and having the whole economy controlled by the government, and then have them say that you alone have to go fend for yourself.

Finally, I keep putting "depraved" in scare quotes because similar polices could be used against anyone for any reason. I don't think you're charitable enough with your money, so no government protection for you! I'm the government, and I don't like the way you criticize my administration, so no protection from you. I don't like the way you talk about rights all the time! I don't like the way you claim taxation is theft! I don't like the fact that you have sex without intending to procreate!

I happen to like the Objectivist/libertarian approach of restricting government to the use of force, and to leave other "moral" concerns outside of that sphere. If someone initiates force, then the government can and should get involved. If they do something you find particularly unpleasant, than find some other means of expressing your disapproval. But when we start using the machinery of government to directly or indirectly punish those behaviors we disagree with, we leave the behind the minimalist government and a focus on individual rights. I find opening that door far more dangerous than tolerating "depraved" people who are not initiating force.

Post 65

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 8:08pm

Jordan, I am not so sure about a medical emergency outside of the context of a crime. Perhaps an argument could be made that you have a responsibility to report to the authorities a person in distress on your property. Would you, for instance, have the right to roll a person having a heart attack off your lawn? I am not sure how a minarchist state would handle all emergency services. I assume most would be privatized. (In that case though, it would be even easier for the private agencies to justify terminating your service agreement if you don't participate!) I would stick to police matters for now.

As for the Nazi? Sorry, but personal hatred for a person is not a matter for the law to consider. The camp survivor has plenty of ways to attempt to redress his grievances through other means. If it matters so much, the camp survivor can watch the Nazi crime victim die, knowing that the fact that he will lose police protection will be worth the satisfaction. Indeed, if the camp survivor really cares, he should murder the Nazi, and be willing to pay the price.

Post 66

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 8:41pm

Hi Ted,

I was going back to Kate's original scenario. No problem if you want to stick with just police matters.

The Nazi scenario is posed to show that sometimes people might have their own morally acceptable reasons for withholding aid. Threatening the survivor with loss of government protection unless he acts against his moral conscience seems coercive. Or if "coercive" doesn't fit, then at least "problematic" in that negative consequences would befall him for acting in accordance with his moral conscience.

Would you, for instance, have the right to roll a person having a heart attack off your lawn?

This has me wondering. Rather than attempt to devise your new opt-out or default law, you might prefer to expand the subset of commonlaw legal duties of care pertaining to legal duties to rescue. You could just add to property owners' legal duties by having them call 911 if a visitor on their premises is a crime victim. I wouldn't be surprised if this is already law in some jurisdictions.

Jordan

Post 67

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 8:25am

Steve, in post 62 you were "in the awkward spot of defending the right to be depraved." A young law student was wondering about "depraved indifference." He writes an intelligent blog based on Madisonianism, and in his law class

we talked about depraved indifference laws, which is where you have to report crimes or intervene under some circumstances or face criminal penalties. One real world example: a guy and his friend were at a casino in Vegas and the friend followed a seven year old girl into a bathroom, raped and killed her. The other guy had followed them in, watched it happen, and never reported it or did anything to stop it. That case happened back in 1998. Just today, there is a similar story about twenty people witnessing a gang rape and no one reporting it. So my question is: would a law that required witnesses to report these crimes be moral?

My proposal in class was to have a statute like this: "Knowing that each citizen has an interest in general security, but not a positive obligation to self-sacrifice, if you have a rational self-interest to report, you must do so."

This is not to argue with you, but to ask for a clarification: What do you think of the young man's proposal?
By the way, the following month, criticizing the Daily Beast "Capitalism's Wicked Witch", by Allen Barra, he wrote: "In the interests of full disclosure, I am an admirer of Rand's work. [ ] Rand, Nozick, Von Mises, Friedman and the other pioneers of libertarian thought were the only ones who articulated a credible defense of individualism in the dark days of 20th century collectivism -- fascism and communism both. [ ] ...her fundamental, deceptively simple yet original philosophical contribution -- that a human being's life is self-justifying and that rational self-interest is the best way of achieving happiness -- stands unaddressed by her critics' often petty attacks."

(Edited by Curtis Edward Clark on 1/12, 8:35am)

Post 68

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 5:11pm

It's hard not to see some witnesses as accomplices, especially in the offered examples.

Sherrice Iverson's mother demanded that David Cash, Jr., be charged as an accessory, but authorities stated there was not enough evidence connecting him to the actual crime, and Cash was never prosecuted for any offense related to the murder.

In the weeks following Strohmeyer's arrest, Cash told the Los Angeles Times that he did not dwell on the murder of Sherrice Iverson. "I'm not going to get upset over somebody else's life. I just worry about myself first. I'm not going to lose sleep over somebody else's problems." He also told the newspaper that the publicity surrounding the case had made it easier for him to "score with women." Cash also told the Long Beach Press-Telegram: "I'm no idiot ... I'll get my money out of this."^[11]^[12]

Two local Los Angeles radio hosts subsequently held a rally to have Cash expelled from the University of California at Berkeley, but University officials stated that they had no basis to remove him since he was not convicted of any crime.

Cash did express equivocal remorse over Iverson's death in a radio interview, stating that "I have a lot of remorse toward the Iverson family. It was a very tragic event...The simple fact remains I don't know this little girl ... I don't know people in Panama or Africa who are killed every day, so I can't feel remorse for them. The only person I know is Jeremy Strohmeyer", but still insisted that he did nothing wrong.^[4]^[13]

^{As a substitute, public ostracism for the rest of his damn life seems reasonable, but who keeps the torch lit?}

Post 69

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 5:56am

The Wikipedia article TSI cited also stated:

Sherrice Iverson's murder led to the passage of Nevada State Assembly Bill 267, requiring people to report to authorities when they have reasonable suspicions that a child younger than 18 is being sexually abused or violently treated. The impetus for the bill stemmed from the inaction of a witness, and friend of the murderer, who stood by and did nothing during the commission of the crime.

The "Sherrice Iverson" bill, introduced by Nevada State Assembly Majority Leader Richard Perkins (D-Henderson), provides for a fine and possible jail time for anyone who fails to report a crime of the nature that led to the creation of the bill. The bill was introduced but was never enacted.

I found this wording confusing. Did one bill "requiring" reporting pass but a subsequent bill for penalties not pass? Did the whole thing not pass? What good is a "requirement" without penalties beyond mere "therapeutic legislation" to make certain people feel better?

A Google search led to this hit suggesting the convicted person would have a misdemeanor on his criminal record which could be problematic even without fines or jail time.

TSI asked:

As a substitute, public ostracism for the rest of his damn life seems reasonable, but who keeps the torch lit?

How about an ostracism agency similar to a credit reporting agency?

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/13, 5:57am)

Post 70

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 7:44am

I agree, Teresa. When is a witness also an accomplice? I easily found this:
An accomplice is someone who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common interest, participates in the commission of a crime, and can be charged with the same crime(s) for which the accused will be tried; complicity means association in a wrongful act; principal means anyone involved in committing a crime; an accessory before the fact aids, incites, or abets but is not physically present; an accessory after the fact receives, comforts, relieves, or assists a felon to avoid apprehension and conviction. [ ] Most states have abolished the old common law distinction between principles (in the first degree, in the second degree) and accessories (before the fact, after the fact), preferring instead the word accomplices for the latter group which treats everyone as principals based upon the doctrine of complicity (participation transfers liability).

So perhaps we ought to be talking about "complicity", but then we also have to define "wrongful act." I found out that failure to report a crime is called "misprision":

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

But this is federal law. I don't know if all States have similar laws. And it doesn't appear to apply to people who simply do not get involved, i.e., failure to report something other than a felony.

Post 71

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 8:00am

Having worked in the field, I can tell you some of the rationale for a law that mandates reporting abuse to a child.

The mechanism that is most effective in protecting a child's rights is the protective nature of the normal parent. That parent acts to guard their child's rights as effectively as they do their own.

But, if the parent IS the abuser, then there is no safeguard and the child, by its nature is not yet developed enough to defend its own rights or even call upon the state to step in protect those rights.

With a shaken baby or a baby that is severely malnourished due to neglect, as examples, a nurse or doctor is a "mandated reporter" in most, if not all, states.

I see this as one of those things like a court order to testify. If the person ordered to testify is not charged with anything, then they are being compelled at gun point to do something is clearly wrong. Yet without this, as our legal system is now structured, we would not be able to defend rights effectively as we do. It is a quandry in the practical realm - an issue to resolved on day, since we are in agreement on the basic principle of defending individual rights.

Defending the rights of children require some form of externalizing the guardianship of a child, who has rights, but hasn't the ability to call for help. It is like appointing many part-time, limited duty guardians but it is done in advance of any wrong-doing and it is not voluntary.

Rand's explanation of rights - in particular that a right can never violate a right - the fact that rights don't conflict is the more fundamental principle and in the end I am optimistic that we will find the right practical implementation or evolve free market mechanisms that will support these functions. But for now they remain like a court order to appear and testify.

Would I be wrong in saying that it is sometimes the accidental nature of practical circumstances that forces us to choose between the lessor of two evils when we know that somewhere (or sometime) there is a solution with no evil?

Post 72

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 8:15am

Curtis,

In post #67 you quote someone who said, "My proposal in class was to have a statute like this: "Knowing that each citizen has an interest in general security, but not a positive obligation to self-sacrifice, if you have a rational self-interest to report, you must do so."

I have a rational self-interest in my physical well-being, should the government force me to follow certain exercise or nutritional regimes? Or to avoid risky sports? I have a rational self-interest in the well being of certain people my life intersects with, should I be forced to report them to the nutrition police for eating unhealthily? Or, should I be prohibited, by law, from reporting a crime committed by someone that I have a rational self-interest in not seeing harmed by a collision with the law?

If you ask me, I'd say that without the razor-sharp edge of individual rights, you just don't have a tool that lets you make intelligible parsings of what should or should not be law.

Post 73

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 8:53am

In a world of perfectly objective laws, I would be strongly inclined to report crimes. I have no inclination whatsoever to report victimless crimes like marijuana possession or voluntary prostitution. I know this is only a tangential point, but it warrants mentioning since mandates to report crimes carry the risk of wrapping still more innocent people in a web of non-objective law violations.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/13, 8:54am)

Post 74

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 10:06am

Quite agree with you, Luke - else half the population in this area would be behind bars, and I'd have to move elsewhere [assuming was still 'here' to be able to so do]...

Post 75

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 4:35pm