Ayn Rand

[Ramo]

I said locking people up as punishment is ethically reprehensible. You don't punish him. The only way I can see a prison as a justifiable organization is as an insititution to protect society. When it is used for punishment/revenge, it is totally unjustifiable authority.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

I would indeed consider threat of coercion a form of coercion depending upon the circumstances, as threats can certainly impose constraints on the actions of a person. But I would agree with Agathon in that I don't know if it qualifies as such in a Randist sense; that is, I don't know if it's ethically consistent to prohibit threats of violence to extort money under a Randist ethical system.

You don't know if it qualifies but you agree with Agathon? Does that mean Agathon doesn't know too? If Agathon does know and you don't know, then you wouldn't be agreeing with him. Of course, Agathon doesn't know either, so you can agree with him on your lack of knowledge. Btw, he makes that argument with respect to libertarianism, not limited to Rand.

For, do I not have a "natural right" to speech?

Not when the speech is coercive - that violates the freedom of the victim.

But my speech doesn't take the life or property away from anybody any more than the speech involved in threatening a person with firing someone from a job, etc. for money. Therefore, the state cannot prohibit my speech, correct?

The speech doesn't have to take anything away, the mere threat (speech) constitutes coercion which is prohibited by the definition of freedom.

Nonetheless, huge numbers would remain.

Deservedly so.

Any the prisons themselves are incredibly authoritarian.

Can't let the lunatics run the asylum.

Even the least objectionable prisons, such as those in Finland, still take away the liberty of people in them to an extreme degree.

Why is this a problem?

For that is the nature of prison. And, frankly, I don't find many libertarian capitalists fighting for less oppressive prisons.

There are so many fights and too little time. The fact libertarians are working hard to empty roughly half the prison population is a necessary first step.

But this is a different matter entirely. In the cases of prisons, the liberty of people are taken away after the fact. It isn't "self-defense" in the sense analagous to dealings between individuals. Just because someone is a murderer, doesn't mean he will kill me or anyone else.

It isn't a different matter entirely, both the violence employed by those acting in self-defense and in retaliation result from the initial aggression. Why is killing in self-defense okay but not in retaliation?

If I've already been killed, the state didn't defend me. No action by the state could possibly defend me.

Yes, and? If the state doesn't kill me in retaliation, then I'm being rewarded for successfully killing you when the just result would be for you to kill me in self-defense.

Retaliation and prevention are both after the fact (i.e. result from an "initiation of force"). That's the reason for my analogy.

Self-defense is a result of the initiation of force too.

Retaliation? I thought libertarian capitalists were above state-sponsored revenge.

Call it what you want, but punishing a person for committing murder is retaliation no matter what other label you want to add. Now, let's say you, your family, and I are the only people on the planet and "government" doesn't exist. If I murder your family, are you not justified in tracking me down and punishing me, i.e., retaliation? Of course, that is why the state has the justification to do the same.

I find violence and force motivatated by revenge just as immoral as violence and force not motivated by revenge.

Then why imprison people in the name of prevention if it is as immoral as imprisoning a murderer in the name of retaliation?

If you hit me, I go home, and then hit you, my action is no more justifiable than yours.

Sure it is, I started the violence. Should I be left alone after hitting you?

That isn't a logically valid assertion. Self-defense is self-defense, retaliation is retaliation. Just because the motives of both actions are the same (some initiation of force), doesn't make them equally morally justifiable.

So if I tried to murder your family, it is moral for you to kill me first, but if I succeed and run away, it is no longer moral for you to kill me because that's retaliation? Doesn't that reward me for my successful crime and escape?

I assumed she was against retaliation as I find it an ethically base and morally reprehensible action, but apparantly I was wrong.

I haven't seen anyone here quote her so I don't know her position either way. But what if we call this retaliation by another name, say, prevention? Does that change the immorality of retaliation to the moral act of prevention?

Anyways, her support is revenge is inconsistent with "natural rights" as well.

Why?

And yes, she was against "prevention," or using force in anticipation of force. Otherwise she would've been pro-drug prohibition and gun control.

The prevention of incarcerating a murderer is to prevent future murders by an already known murderer. The possession of drugs or guns violates no one else's freedom, so banning these products doesn't prevent future violations of freedom by already known violators of freedom.

Depending upon the circumstances, perhaps. But it is not consistent under a Randist system. Retaliation and pre-emptive restraint aren't justified from the Randist concept of self-defense.

In my question, I was intent on murdering you and had already tried to achieve my goal. But Rand would say you can't ethically defend yourself if retaliation or pre-emptive measures are taken? At what point does self-defense become ethical given I've already tried to kill you and will try again at my leisure? If I knew for a fact that my neighbor was out to murder me, I wouldn't wait till he snuck into my house late at night when I'm asleep.

Punishing a person by locking him up in a prison is ethically reprehensible.

Why? Is leaving a serial rapist free to roam about committing more rapes ethical?

Or different brain chemistry, etc., but yes most people don't want to be killed.

By "different" brain chemistry, you mean an abnormality. But what small child, given this abnormality, wants to be murdered? Little children don't commit suicide, so I doubt you'll find one who wants to be murdered either. So I suspect it's more than brain chemistry unless this "different" brain chemistry can only develop later in life. Teens are the earliest to commit suicide, but they are more prone to emotional trauma or "growing pains" which result from ridicule, etc. So, as I said, any desire to be murdered results from occurences found later in life. Small children simply don't want to be murdered...

Near-universal desire, but you still haven't justified this assertion.

No, universal. Again, citing a person who would rather die than go on suffering is not proof they want to be murdered, it's proof they don't want to go on living with pain. Remove the pain and you remove the desire to be murdered. And I think we have different meanings for justification, the universality is the justification.

Wanting something isn't the same thing as believing it is morally good, and not wanting something isn't the same thing as believing it is morally bad.

So if no one wanted to be murdered and there were no murders, that might be immoral anyway?

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

I said locking people up as punishment is ethically reprehensible. You don't punish him. The only way I can see a prison as a justifiable organization is as an insititution to protect society. When it is used for punishment/revenge, it is totally unjustifiable authority.

I find violence and force motivatated by revenge just as immoral as violence and force not motivated by revenge.

Isn't prevention the use of violence and force not motivated by revenge? I'll assume you meant to exclude prevention from that statement, but why is prevention moral but not retaliation? That reminds me of the question Bernard Shaw asked Michael Dukakis during the '88 election. He was asked what he'd do if he came home and found a man raping his wife and Dukakis, taking your position, greatly damaged his campaign by refusing to say he'd kill the SOB who raped his wife. His position was that he'd restrain the rapist and call the authorities.

[Richard Bruns]

I would like to say that the Libertarians are making the most sense here. It seems obvious to me that any coercion or threat of force is an infringement on someone´s freedom.

But I still think Rand is a dangerous nutcase. Using her as an example of the Libertarian ideal is like using Stalin as an example of the Communist ideal.

Enlightened self-interest can lead to any government or economic system that the people choose to adopt. There is nothing contradictory about Libertarianism and Socialism; if a group of people in a Libertarian society choose to form a collective, they can easily do so by writing a contract among themselves.

But historically speaking, communism tends to be enforced by government fiat while capitalism tends to come from the will of the people, with the notable exceptions of things like labor unions and farm cooperatives, both of which seem to be perfectly compatible with the ideals of Libertarianism.

[Ramo]

Not when the speech is coercive - that violates the freedom of the victim.

But the speech that threatens to fire a person is coercive too. It imposes constraints on a person's actions. The difference is in the degree of coercion.

The speech doesn't have to take anything away, the mere threat (speech) constitutes coercion which is prohibited by the definition of freedom.

So one cannot threaten to fire someone to extort money?

Can't let the lunatics run the asylum.

I'm not sure what you're saying... Less harsh conditions in prisons don't mean that prisons are run by prisoners. Although I would certainly like to see some form of influence by prisoners on its administration.

Why is this a problem?

It's not a problem. I was making a point that prisons are extremely authoritarian.

There are so many fights and too little time. The fact libertarians are working hard to empty roughly half the prison population is a necessary first step.

Nonetheless, it's a shame that the LP takes an authoritarian position wrt prison reform.

It isn't a different matter entirely, both the violence employed by those acting in self-defense and in retaliation result from the initial aggression.

Yep, and that's the only thing they have in common. Justification for one doesn't imply justification for the other.

Why is killing in self-defense okay but not in retaliation?

Self-defence decrease authority, retaliation increases authority.

Yes, and? If the state doesn't kill me in retaliation, then I'm being rewarded for successfully killing you when the just result would be for you to kill me in self-defense.

It isn't the state's job to "reward" you or "punish" you. Leave that up to your deity if you have one. Involuntary state-sponsered killings are immoral, unless there are exigent circumstances (it's impossible for you to be detained, etc.).

Self-defense is a result of the initiation of force too.

My bad. I wasn't thinking when I wrote that last part ("i.e. result from an "initiation of force"). The reason for the analogy was that both actions are after-the-fact.

Call it what you want, but punishing a person for committing murder is retaliation no matter what other label you want to add.

That's right. I don't believe that the purpose of a prison should be punishment. As I told Imran, the only moral justification for a prison IMO is a pre-emptive protection of society.

Now, let's say you, your family, and I are the only people on the planet and "government" doesn't exist. If I murder your family, are you not justified in tracking me down and punishing me, i.e., retaliation? Of course, that is why the state has the justification to do the same.

No, I wouldn't be justified in "punishing" you. Of course, that's not to say that I wouldn't do so, as I probably wouldn't be thinking very rationally or in high-grounded moral terms at the moment.

Then why imprison people in the name of prevention if it is as immoral as imprisoning a murderer in the name of retaliation?

Because prevention ideally reduces authority. Retaliation increases authority.

Sure it is, I started the violence. Should I be left alone after hitting you?

I certainly shouldn't be hitting you. Whether or not you should be left alone is dependent upon the circumstance.

So if I tried to murder your family, it is moral for you to kill me first, but if I succeed and run away, it is no longer moral for you to kill me because that's retaliation? Doesn't that reward me for my successful crime and escape?

It would be moral, under certain circumstances, if it's a pre-emptive attack to protect society. It is not moral as an act of revenge.

Why?

Because revenge violates his natural right to life and liberty.

The prevention of incarcerating a murderer is to prevent future murders by an already known murderer. The possession of drugs or guns violates no one else's freedom, so banning these products doesn't prevent future violations of freedom by already known violators of freedom.

Why does it matter if they are "already known violators of freedom" under a Randist ethics system? The people who have "violated freedom" don't have any natural rights? Why?

Furthermore, if I don't give a starving person food, I have denied this person his natural right to life. Does that mean I no longer have a natural right to property, so he would be justified in taking away mine? I thought that was ethically bad according to Rand.

In my question, I was intent on murdering you and had already tried to achieve my goal. But Rand would say you can't ethically defend yourself if retaliation or pre-emptive measures are taken? At what point does self-defense become ethical given I've already tried to kill you and will try again at my leisure? If I knew for a fact that my neighbor was out to murder me, I wouldn't wait till he snuck into my house late at night when I'm asleep.

If you are actively trying to kill me, incapacitating you in some way would indeed be self-defense. But just because someone is a murderer doesn't mean he's actively or passively trying to murder someone else.

Why? Is leaving a serial rapist free to roam about committing more rapes ethical?

You are misinterpreting that statement. I said that it was ethically reprehensible to lock him up as "punishment." Not that it is ethically reprehensible to lock him up.

Small children simply don't want to be murdered...

Small children usually don't understand the concept.

No, universal. Again, citing a person who would rather die than go on suffering is not proof they want to be murdered, it's proof they don't want to go on living with pain. Remove the pain and you remove the desire to be murdered.

That's logically absurd.

I want food. But if you remove the deficiencies in my body, you remove the desire to want food. Therefore, I don't want food.

And I think we have different meanings for justification, the universality is the justification.

I define justification by proof based on logic and the assumptions. Start with the assumption that humans overwhelmingly tend to not want to die. I accept that. How does that prove the existence of "natural rights," (that is, the absolute ethical metric favored by objectivists). That's all you have to demonstrate to end the whole natural rights debate.

So if no one wanted to be murdered and there were no murders, that might be immoral anyway?

What do you mean? If no one killed anyone else and no one wanted to be killed, that has no bearing on whether involuntary killing is immoral (in my ethical system).

[Ramo]

Isn't prevention the use of violence and force not motivated by revenge? I'll assume you meant to exclude prevention from that statement, but why is prevention moral but not retaliation?

As I said earlier, prevention ideally decreases authority, while retaliation only increases authority.

That reminds me of the question Bernard Shaw asked Michael Dukakis during the '88 election. He was asked what he'd do if he came home and found a man raping his wife and Dukakis, taking your position, greatly damaged his campaign by refusing to say he'd kill the SOB who raped his wife. His position was that he'd restrain the rapist and call the authorities.

I don't know what I'd do. I'd hope I would be as rational as that under those circumstances, but I'm not a perfect person and I know that.

[Ramo]

Enlightened self-interest can lead to any government or economic system that the people choose to adopt. There is nothing contradictory about Libertarianism and Socialism; if a group of people in a Libertarian society choose to form a collective, they can easily do so by writing a contract among themselves.
But historically speaking, communism tends to be enforced by government fiat while capitalism tends to come from the will of the people, with the notable exceptions of things like labor unions and farm cooperatives, both of which seem to be perfectly compatible with the ideals of Libertarianism.

I don't want to get into a rant, but you really ought to look at the coorelation between libertarianism and socialism (by libertarianism, I mean a minimal public authority and by socialism, I mean the worker control of the means of production). One rarely exists without the other.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
Enlightened self-interest can lead to any government or economic system that the people choose to adopt. There is nothing contradictory about Libertarianism and Socialism; if a group of people in a Libertarian society choose to form a collective, they can easily do so by writing a contract among themselves.

There is. Socialism necessarily limits liberty in favour of equality.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

But the speech that threatens to fire a person is coercive too. It imposes constraints on a person's actions. The difference is in the degree of coercion.

That isn't a constraint on the secretary's actions, it may be coercive. But unlike the victim of the robber's coercion who owns both his life or the money sought by the robber, the secretary doesn't own her job so the 2 examples are not analogous. She can say no and lose a job she doesn't own (but sue for contract violation), the victim of the robber can say no and lose his life - that's why coercion is relevant to his situation and not the secretary's.

So one cannot threaten to fire someone to extort money?

Like the boss and the secretary situation, that would violate the employment contract. In that example, the secretary has a legal justification for a lawsuit just as the employee in your example.

I'm not sure what you're saying... Less harsh conditions in prisons don't mean that prisons are run by prisoners.

You lamented the authoritarian nature of prisons, hence my comment about letting the lunatics run the asylum. The conditions are another matter we obviously agree need reform.

Nonetheless, it's a shame that the LP takes an authoritarian position wrt prison reform.

Wait a minute, you complained about the LP allegedly not doing enough to reform prisons, now you accuse the LP of supporting harsh conditions? When Gov Gray Davis of Calif said if he had his way Enron Ken Lay would be playing the girlfriend of some guy in a California prison, it was the LP who issued a press release highlighting the disgusting implication of Davis' statement. Did the Dems/Repubs, or Greens condemn Davis?

Yep, and that's the only thing they have in common. Justification for one doesn't imply justification for the other.

Yes, both are justified because they result from the aggressor's actions. Listen, this argument is one of semantics, you advocate incarcerating murderers just as the LP, but you seem to think your desire to incarcerate murderers is moral because you call it "prevention" while others who may call it "retaliation" or "punishment" are immoral. I still don't know why "prevention" is moral and "retaliation" is immoral when both result in the same action.

Self-defence decrease authority, retaliation increases authority.

How does my tracking down and killing the man who murdered my family increase authority? And why is an increase in authority immoral when that authority is justified? If the man who murdered your family is left free to roam, does not his already proven desire to exercise authority over others result in an unchecked increase in authority and eliminating him through retaliation eliminates that unchecked authority?

It isn't the state's job to "reward" you or "punish" you.

But that is what the state is doing if I commit murder and it doesn't punish me accordingly. I would have been justifiably killed during my attack had you been successful in your defense. Allowing me to live, even in a cage, rewards me for successfully killing you.

Involuntary state-sponsered killings are immoral, unless there are exigent circumstances (it's impossible for you to be detained, etc.).

Why? And what happens when that incarcerated murderer kills prison guards or inmates or escapes and kills more people outside of prison?

That's right. I don't believe that the purpose of a prison should be punishment. As I told Imran, the only moral justification for a prison IMO is a pre-emptive protection of society.

But all you've done is attach a different label to the same action.

No, I wouldn't be justified in "punishing" you. Of course, that's not to say that I wouldn't do so, as I probably wouldn't be thinking very rationally or in high-grounded moral terms at the moment.

You're assuming revenge is irrational.

Because prevention ideally reduces authority. Retaliation increases authority.

How? The reason we have a drug war is "prevention", not "retaliation". If retaliation was the sole reason for incarcerating someone, then we could logically incarcerate only those people who've violated the rights of others. "Prevention" has led to the massive prison population we have.

I certainly shouldn't be hitting you. Whether or not you should be left alone is dependent upon the circumstance.

Why not? It seems to me that if someone doesn't teach the bully respect via a successful self-defense, then retaliation is the only remaining recourse.

It would be moral, under certain circumstances, if it's a pre-emptive attack to protect society. It is not moral as an act of revenge.

But it isn't pre-emptive, it's after the fact. Pre-emptive is what we are doing in the drug war, preventing what may happen, and pre-emption is immoral because it assumes guilt (as in "Minority Report").

Because revenge violates his natural right to life and liberty.

How? Does a murderer have some natural right to life even after they've taken that right away from others? Btw, I thought you rejected natural rights? Like I said, you advocate the same thing as those who support retaliation, you just call it a different name and then claim you're moral and they're immoral.

Why does it matter if they are "already known violators of freedom" under a Randist ethics system? The people who have "violated freedom" don't have any natural rights? Why?

I'm not very familiar with Rand's ethics, but it matters because they've already given up their moral claim to natural rights by taking away the rights of others.

Furthermore, if I don't give a starving person food, I have denied this person his natural right to life.

No, nature has made us dependent on food, not you. It may be immoral to not give the food, but you've not violated anyone's rights.

Does that mean I no longer have a natural right to property, so he would be justified in taking away mine?

You have property rights and you can give away your food if you want. If I'm in need of food and I steal yours, you can quite easily forgive me, but I'm still morally responsible for compensating you unless you forgive me the monetary debt as well.

I thought that was ethically bad according to Rand.

I don't think she said charity is unethical.

If you are actively trying to kill me, incapacitating you in some way would indeed be self-defense. But just because someone is a murderer doesn't mean he's actively or passively trying to murder someone else.

But you'd still be justified in tracking me down before I can make another attempt on your life. That last part is interesting, why imprison murderers then if committing murder is not proof he will try to commit murder in the future? I thought "prevention" was the only moral reason for incarceration, if the murderer won't do it again, we aren't preventing future murders and it's now immoral (by your standard) to imprison him.

You are misinterpreting that statement. I said that it was ethically reprehensible to lock him up as "punishment." Not that it is ethically reprehensible to lock him up.

So then it would be immoral for a rape victim to go after the man who raped her if the courts released him for a lack of evidence? Why does it matter if you lock him up for "prevention" and I lock him up for "retaliation"? He committed the crime, he does the time.

Small children usually don't understand the concept.

Some don't understand death, but when they do, some would want to be murdered? It's true some small children don't understand death until they have a loved one die (or play a video game ), but they're very young. Once children reach 7 or 8, death is no longer a foreign concept. But we don't see children under 10 committing suicide.

That's logically absurd.

I want food. But if you remove the deficiencies in my body, you remove the desire to want food. Therefore, I don't want food.

That's right, if you're hungry and eat a big meal, you no longer want food. If you want to die because you have a painful cancer, it's not that you want to die, but that you prefer death to living with the pain. Remove the pain and you remove the desire to die. Again, we are talking about a universal desire to live, a desire we all have when we are young. It's only after we've lived a while and serious pain enters the picture that we start losing the desire to live. That doesn't change the fact we start out with a universal desire to live.

I define justification by proof based on logic and the assumptions. Start with the assumption that humans overwhelmingly tend to not want to die. I accept that. How does that prove the existence of "natural rights," (that is, the absolute ethical metric favored by objectivists). That's all you have to demonstrate to end the whole natural rights debate.

I've said the universal desires we all share are just one way of discerning what rights are natural, but the existence of natural rights stem from ownership. You own yourself, therefore you own your labor and the property you peacefully and honestly obtain by expenditures of your labor and time from your life.

What do you mean?

I'll rephrase my question: if no one wants to be murdered, including the hypocrites who murder others, why is the absence of any murder immoral?

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Ramo

I don't want to get into a rant, but you really ought to look at the coorelation between libertarianism and socialism (by libertarianism, I mean a minimal public authority and by socialism, I mean the worker control of the means of production). One rarely exists without the other.

I know that most of the worst strike-breaking in American history was done with the active or passive support of government authorities. Government fiat has indeed supported capitalism and squashed socialism.

However, I do not see how minimal public authority should imply worker control of capital. The people with the brains and ambition to invest in new technology and capital are rarely the same people who are content to do factory work. So in the absence of outside intervention, there will almost always emerge a system where some people hire other people to do work for them. That´s just human nature.

Historically, workers only tend to gain control of more complex means of production by taking it from the people who built it in the first place. This requires the violating the property rights of the original owner, caused by either a lack of the rule of law (anarchy) or an excess of government (nationalization).

Of course, sometimes the workers already owned the means of production and agree to form a cooperative. This is basically limited to farming and crafts with limited capital requirements. This situation fits Libertarian ideals while the former situation clearly does not.

[Ramo]

Berz:

That isn't a constraint on the secretary's actions, it may be coercive. But unlike the victim of the robber's coercion who owns both his life or the money sought by the robber, the secretary doesn't own her job so the 2 examples are not analogous. She can say no and lose a job she doesn't own (but sue for contract violation), the victim of the robber can say no and lose his life - that's why coercion is relevant to his situation and not the secretary's.

But the victim of the robber won't lose his life since the premise of the argument is that the robber is bluffing. In this situation as in the case of the secretrary/firing situation, what's coercive is the threat, not what is being verbally threatened.

Like the boss and the secretary situation, that would violate the employment contract. In that example, the secretary has a legal justification for a lawsuit just as the employee in your example.

But the threat constitues coercion, which you say is prohibited by freedom of speech.

Wait a minute, you complained about the LP allegedly not doing enough to reform prisons, now you accuse the LP of supporting harsh conditions?

Yes, those two are equivalent actions.

When Gov Gray Davis of Calif said if he had his way Enron Ken Lay would be playing the girlfriend of some guy in a California prison, it was the LP who issued a press release highlighting the disgusting implication of Davis' statement. Did the Dems/Repubs, or Greens condemn Davis?

I don't know. It seems pretty useless to condemn Davis when he's only saying the obvious about prison conditions.

Yes, both are justified because they result from the aggressor's actions.

So any actions resulting from an "agressor's" actions are moral? After 9/11, there were people who wanted to turn the Middle East into glass. Such an action would've resulted from an initiation of force on innocent civilians, but that doesn't make it moral.

And you can't just claim a moral right to retaliate out of thin air. Isn't the moral right to self-defense the basis of Randist philosophy? Are you trying to say that the moral right to do anything in response to an "initiation of force" is the real basis of Randist philosophy. If so, I'd love to see an attempt at a justification at that.

Listen, this argument is one of semantics, you advocate incarcerating murderers just as the LP, but you seem to think your desire to incarcerate murderers is moral because you call it "prevention" while others who may call it "retaliation" or "punishment" are immoral. I still don't know why "prevention" is moral and "retaliation" is immoral when both result in the same action.

It's not about semantics.

First off, you're confusing two issues that I've brought up:
1. The idea that the moral right to self-defense does not imply the moral right to revenge.
2. The idea that using prisons as a tool for state-sponsored revenge, instead of pre-emptively protecting society, is immoral.

You responded to a quote regarding one, and responded to idea two.

What you call it or don't call it is irrelevant. The motives behind the use of the force are relevant. They are relevant because differing motives behind the use of prisons imply differing uses of prisons. For instance, I find the death penalty ethically abhorrent, while you apparantly don't. I'm also willing to bet that I support lighter penalties in general than you do.

But that is what the state is doing if I commit murder and it doesn't punish me accordingly. I would have been justifiably killed during my attack had you been successful in your defense.

Not if lesser means would've been more successful.

Allowing me to live, even in a cage, rewards me for successfully killing you.

What kind of reward is putting you in a cage? Again, it isn't yours or anyone else's job to "punish" people. I find such action immoral as it can only increase coercion.

How does my tracking down and killing the man who murdered my family increase authority?

Your act of coercion takes away his life.

Why?

Because I believe that killing or any other form of coercion is immoral. So the lesser the coercion needed to prevent this person from coercing others, the better. In the US, outside of certain circumstances in war, there is no case where death is needed to restrain people.

And what happens when that incarcerated murderer kills prison guards or inmates or escapes and kills more people outside of prison?

Then this person is not competently restrained. Only if competent detention is impossible, can involuntary killing be justified.

And why is an increase in authority immoral when that authority is justified? If the man who murdered your family is left free to roam, does not his already proven desire to exercise authority over others result in an unchecked increase in authority and eliminating him through retaliation eliminates that unchecked authority?

Then the motives behind that are pre-emptively protecting society in anticipation of future murders, not revenge/retaliation. Which is inconsistent with Rand's philosophy as well.

But all you've done is attach a different label to the same action.

Why do you believe the action is the same?

You're assuming revenge is irrational.

It is to me.

How? The reason we have a drug war is "prevention", not "retaliation".

Yes, that's why I'm saying Rand wouldn't justify prevention.

If retaliation was the sole reason for incarcerating someone, then we could logically incarcerate only those people who've violated the rights of others.

Yes, and I find doing so due to retaliation ethically immoral in the extreme. In a prison the state takes away a person's liberty to an extreme degree. The only reason I can see to do such a horrible thing is to prevent this person from taking away the liberties of others. And until we have a way of knowing whether such things will happen, prior criminal record is the best way of determing this.

"Prevention" has led to the massive prison population we have.

That's because prevention really isn't prevention in this case. The drug war is totally counterproductive as a method of increasing freedom.

Why not? It seems to me that if someone doesn't teach the bully respect via a successful self-defense, then retaliation is the only remaining recourse.

Revenge only teaches bullies to pick on people incapable of revenge. It certainly doesn't teach "respect."

But it isn't pre-emptive, it's after the fact.

It's pre-emptive with respect to future infringements on liberty. Prior crime determines the likelyhood of such events occuring.

Pre-emptive is what we are doing in the drug war, preventing what may happen, and pre-emption is immoral because it assumes guilt (as in "Minority Report").

That's exactly what it does. It assumes that a person has a strong chance of committ more crime and attempts to reform his behavior accordingly. I would say that it's immoral, but it's less immoral than the alternative (with serial killers running around, etc.). And it's certainly less immoral than a revenge-based "justice" system.

How? Does a murderer have some natural right to life even after they've taken that right away from others?

Why doesn't he? It's natural isn't it? How can man take it away?

Btw, I thought you rejected natural rights?

I do. But I was explaining why it was inconsistent in a Randist sense, so invoked the principle of natural rights.

Like I said, you advocate the same thing as those who support retaliation, you just call it a different name and then claim you're moral and they're immoral.

I certainly do not. There are vast differences between the two philosphies. In the US, you see a more draconian revenge-style system, for instance. You can see that by Davis' comment you cited.

I'm not very familiar with Rand's ethics, but it matters because they've already given up their moral claim to natural rights by taking away the rights of others.

Yes, you just restated my question. Now, why is this so?

No, nature has made us dependent on food, not you. It may be immoral to not give the food, but you've not violated anyone's rights.

He would have his life were it not for my actions. So I have taken away his life. It was an act of coercion.

You have property rights and you can give away your food if you want. If I'm in need of food and I steal yours, you can quite easily forgive me, but I'm still morally responsible for compensating you unless you forgive me the monetary debt as well.

But I'm a "known violator of freedom!" So I no longer have any property rights, so you can morally take away all the food and money I have. Or my life, in fact.

Let's come up with a more interesting situation. I'm a starving person, and a steal a loaf of bread from Bill Gates, but he doesn't forgive me. Now, I'm a "known violator of freedom." So I have no rights. So my life forfeit to the state. Is this correct?

But you'd still be justified in tracking me down before I can make another attempt on your life.

Only if I have good reason that you're trying to kill me.

That last part is interesting, why imprison murderers then if committing murder is not proof he will try to commit murder in the future? I thought "prevention" was the only moral reason for incarceration, if the murderer won't do it again, we aren't preventing future murders and it's now immoral (by your standard) to imprison him.

We're playing with probabilities. He may or may not committ more murders. Prison should insure that he won't through extensive counseling and temporary exclusion from free society.

So then it would be immoral for a rape victim to go after the man who raped her if the courts released him for a lack of evidence?

Yes, unless this person is actively trying to rape/kill/etc. other people.

[qutoe]Why does it matter if you lock him up for "prevention" and I lock him up for "retaliation"? He committed the crime, he does the time.[/quote]

He might not do the same time. He might not do the same things in prison.

Some don't understand death, but when they do, some would want to be murdered? It's true some small children don't understand death until they have a loved one die (or play a video game ), but they're very young. Once children reach 7 or 8, death is no longer a foreign concept. But we don't see children under 10 committing suicide.

I'll have to plead ignorance, as I don't know much about child suicide. But, young children (at least in the West) generally don't have serious constraints put upon them. Life for most people entails heavy constraint. It always has. These are exceptional circumstances, so doesn't say anything about universal psychology.

That's right, if you're hungry and eat a big meal, you no longer want food.

I just ate. I no longer want food. That may be permanent. I can take drugs to deprive me of hunger until I die if I really wanted to.

If you want to die because you have a painful cancer, it's not that you want to die, but that you prefer death to living with the pain.

That's playing with semantics. Life nearly always entails pain.

I've said the universal desires we all share are just one way of discerning what rights are natural,

You've never adequately explained this.

but the existence of natural rights stem from ownership. You own yourself, therefore you own your labor and the property you peacefully and honestly obtain by expenditures of your labor and time from your life.

1. Why do I own* myself? In slave societies people certainly didn't have moral rights to themselves. Remember, moral systems are philosophical systems so can be constructed arbirarily.
2. Why does owning myself imply owning my "labor and the property I peacefully and honestly obtain by expenditures of my labor and time from my life?"

*By own, I assume you mean moral rights over, and not in the conventional sense as legal rights over.

RB:

However, I do not see how minimal public authority should imply worker control of capital. The people with the brains and ambition to invest in new technology and capital are rarely the same people who are content to do factory work. So in the absence of outside intervention, there will almost always emerge a system where some people hire other people to do work for them. That´s just human nature.

Minimal public authority implies that there are no no poor to use the government to seek redress, and no rich to use the government to insure or widen the gap between rich and poor. Thus, the only libertarian society is a socialist one.

Historically, workers only tend to gain control of more complex means of production by taking it from the people who built it in the first place. This requires the violating the property rights of the original owner, caused by either a lack of the rule of law (anarchy) or an excess of government (nationalization).

1. Anarchy isn't "lack of rule of law." Being an anarchist, this is an irritating issue for me. Anarchism is the minimization of authority, public or private. Libertarian socialism if you like.
2. Socialist revolutionaries tend to have differing ideas with the state over the validity of property claims. What makes one property claim better than another?
3. There are cases where the workers in the capitalist system are legally able to take control of the means of production. During the late 19th century, the French for instance made a lot of progress in gaining control of the means of production through using collective capital and their labor power (until they were crushed by the state).

[Az]

I said locking people up as punishment is ethically reprehensible.

Ramo: sorry to burst in, but do you believe that punishment, generally, is ethically reprhensible, or that this sort of punishment is reprehensible?

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Narz
Definitely not hot I'll give you guys that much. Her philosophy is pretty airtight though. I'm curious to hear what arguements the "Euros" (you say it as if they all share one mind ) have against it.

I can assure you that "the Euros" don't share one borg single mind (althougt some people here are trying very hard )

[Berzerker]

Ramo - I'll try to deal with the more important points to save time.

But the victim of the robber won't lose his life since the premise of the argument is that the robber is bluffing. In this situation as in the case of the secretrary/firing situation, what's coercive is the threat, not what is being verbally threatened.

It doesn't matter if he's bluffing, the coercion exists in the mind of the person being threatened with harm if they don't hand over their money. They don't know if the robber is bluffing. Freedom requires the absence of coercion in order to exist, but the boss' threat, even if it is carried out, doesn't violate the freedom of the secretary, the robber's threat does. Her freedom isn't being violated because she has no right to the job in the first place. She loses nothing that's hers by walking away, but she can sue the boss for violating the contract.

So any actions resulting from an "agressor's" actions are moral? After 9/11, there were people who wanted to turn the Middle East into glass. Such an action would've resulted from an initiation of force on innocent civilians, but that doesn't make it moral.

Did I say any action taken against the innocent was moral? No, I said any actions - self-defense or retaliation - taken against the (would-be or actual) murderer are moral. How you turned that into nuking the ME is beyond me.

Isn't the moral right to self-defense the basis of Randist philosophy?

I don't know, I'm not a Randist. But the moral right to retaliate derives from the same source as the right of self-defense - the right to life.

It's not about semantics.

It is, you call prison one thing and I call it another - the result is the same for the person in prison.

What you call it or don't call it is irrelevant. The motives behind the use of the force are relevant. They are relevant because differing motives behind the use of prisons imply differing uses of prisons.

You're making assumptions about what conditions I support based on the difference in our motives.

For instance, I find the death penalty ethically abhorrent, while you apparantly don't. I'm also willing to bet that I support lighter penalties in general than you do.

All of which has nothing to do with prison conditions.

What kind of reward is putting you in a cage?

Quite a nice one if you're in charge of the prison. Hell, the murderer might even get out fairly soon because of your lighter sentencing policies. I'd say most people would find that preferable to death.

Again, it isn't yours or anyone else's job to "punish" people. I find such action immoral as it can only increase coercion.

You keep saying you find it immoral without explaining why. And telling me that "punishing" someone increases "coercion" doesn't tell me anything either since I don't view punishing murderers and rapist as "coercion" since their actions were outside the bounds of freedom.

Your act of coercion takes away his life.

So? He murdered my family and you think he should just be left alone because tracking him down and killing him is "coercion"?
I call it justice.

Because I believe that killing or any other form of coercion is immoral. So the lesser the coercion needed to prevent this person from coercing others, the better. In the US, outside of certain circumstances in war, there is no case where death is needed to restrain people.

Punishing murderers is justice, not coercion.

Then this person is not competently restrained. Only if competent detention is impossible, can involuntary killing be justified.

And yet in our so very autocratic and harsh prisons you want to make less autocratic and harsh, they will be competently restrained? Like it or not, people do murder others in prison and some escape and murder people on then outside. Executing a murderer ensures they won'd do it again, now that's prevention.

That's because prevention really isn't prevention in this case. The drug war is totally counterproductive as a method of increasing freedom.

But prevention is the rationale for the drug war nonetheless. That means there's a flaw in your argument, not in mine. When retaliation is the only valid reason for punishing a person, only those who violate the rights of others are punished.

Revenge only teaches bullies to pick on people incapable of revenge. It certainly doesn't teach "respect."

Just who is incapable of revenge? The bully sure wouldn't know and he'd probably learn some respect if a former victim paid him a surprise visit.

It's pre-emptive with respect to future infringements on liberty. Prior crime determines the likelyhood of such events occuring.

That isn't pre-emption, we punish drug users pre-emptively based on what we think they might do, not because of what they've done. We may soon be invading Iraq to pre-empt an Iraqi supported terrorist attack on the USA, but that attack hasn't happened in the past.

Why doesn't he? It's natural isn't it? How can man take it away?

Ahem, you advocate taking his freedom too. He forfeits his rights when he took away the rights of his victims.

He would have his life were it not for my actions.

Don't you mean inaction?

So I have taken away his life. It was an act of coercion.

Does that mean you're killing people in Africa who starve to death since you aren't there giving them your food? Equating inaction with coercion defies logic.

But I'm a "known violator of freedom!" So I no longer have any property rights, so you can morally take away all the food and money I have. Or my life, in fact.

Don't be silly, petty theft doesn't warrant the death penalty.

Let's come up with a more interesting situation. I'm a starving person, and a steal a loaf of bread from Bill Gates, but he doesn't forgive me. Now, I'm a "known violator of freedom." So I have no rights. So my life forfeit to the state. Is this correct?

Still being silly.

We're playing with probabilities. He may or may not committ more murders. Prison should insure that he won't through extensive counseling and temporary exclusion from free society.

But that doesn't change the fact that your motive of prevention means the "innocent" - murderers who won't murder in the future - are being horribly "coerced". That's another flaw in your "prevention" argument.

Yes, unless this person is actively trying to rape/kill/etc. other people.

So we disagree, justice matters in my philosophy.

He might not do the same time. He might not do the same things in prison.

Then my position might not be immoral and your position might be immoral, too many "mights" to make declarative statements about morality.

I'll have to plead ignorance, as I don't know much about child suicide. But, young children (at least in the West) generally don't have serious constraints put upon them. Life for most people entails heavy constraint. It always has. These are exceptional circumstances, so doesn't say anything about universal psychology.

"Serious constraints"? Like constraints imposed by tyrants? As I have repeatedly said, the desire to live is universal and the burdens imposed by others don't change that fact just because some people would rather die than live as slaves. Remove the burden and you remove the desire to end the suffering. I don't know why you keep arguing this point, it's so obvious.

That's playing with semantics. Life nearly always entails pain.

So why don't people commit suicide as soon as they are able? Because it takes alot of pain before such a drastic measure is considered.

1. Why do I own* myself? In slave societies people certainly didn't have moral rights to themselves. Remember, moral systems are philosophical systems so can be constructed arbirarily.

Using the fact some people violate the rights of others as a refutation of natural rights is as illogical as claiming some civil rights violations means civil rights don't exist either. And arbitrariness in a "moral" system is an oxymoron.

2. Why does owning myself imply owning my "labor and the property I peacefully and honestly obtain by expenditures of my labor and time from my life?"

Because I cannot take your labor or property without taking part of your life. If you spent 10 years working to buy a home and I stole it, I just stole 10 years of your life.

*By own, I assume you mean moral rights over, and not in the conventional sense as legal rights over.

Yes.

[Ramo]

Dal:

Ramo: sorry to burst in, but do you believe that punishment, generally, is ethically reprhensible, or that this sort of punishment is reprehensible?

Coercion as punishment is ethically reprehensible.

Berz:

It doesn't matter if he's bluffing, the coercion exists in the mind of the person being threatened with harm if they don't hand over their money. They don't know if the robber is bluffing. Freedom requires the absence of coercion in order to exist, but the boss' threat, even if it is carried out, doesn't violate the freedom of the secretary, the robber's threat does. Her freedom isn't being violated because she has no right to the job in the first place. She loses nothing that's hers by walking away, but she can sue the boss for violating the contract.

But it doesn't matter if she doesn't "own" the job. The act of coercion is the threat, not the action beheind the threat. And both threats are equally coercive.

Did I say any action taken against the innocent was moral?

Yes you did, as long as the action is an act of retaliation. Whether one is "innocent" or not is irrelevent. Nuking the ME would be an act of retaliation against al-Qaeda, etc.

No, I said any actions - self-defense or retaliation - taken against the (would-be or actual) murderer are moral. How you turned that into nuking the ME is beyond me.

Ok, let's say someone kills my SO. In an act of retaliation against him, I kill his SO. Is that moral?

Or, let's say that he steals a piece of bread from me. In an act of retaliation, I kill him. Is that moral?

Or, let's say that he kills my SO. In act of retaliation, I steal his car. Is that moral?

But the moral right to retaliate derives from the same source as the right of self-defense - the right to life.

Once again, you haven't justified the right to retaliate from the right to live. Which is the fundamental error in your argument.

It is, you call prison one thing and I call it another - the result is the same for the person in prison.

Prison for a different punishment, most likely. Revenge can justify insanely authoritarian acts, such as senseless killing. Protecting society cannot.

You're making assumptions about what conditions I support based on the difference in our motives.

No, I'm not. If someone is a "known violator of freedom," you believe that the state take any act of retaliation against him. That implies that draconian conditions are perfectly moral.

All of which has nothing to do with prison conditions.

You're telling me that killing people in prisons has nothing to do with prison conditions?

Quite a nice one if you're in charge of the prison. Hell, the murderer might even get out fairly soon because of your lighter sentencing policies. I'd say most people would find that preferable to death.

Because it's a lighter sentence than a more draconian one doesn't make it a "reward." Once again, "reward" and "punishment" should be left to religion.

You keep saying you find it immoral without explaining why. And telling me that "punishing" someone increases "coercion" doesn't tell me anything either since I don't view punishing murderers and rapist as "coercion" since their actions were outside the bounds of freedom.

Coercion is constraint. "Punishing" people for the hell of it puts constraints on them while doesn't reduce constraints on others. Therefore such actions increase net coercion. I believe coercion is immoral, thus punishment is immoral.

You have a very narrow definition of coercion/freedom. These words don't lose meaning when you think such wording is inconvenient. I suggest looking these words up in a dictionary.

So? He murdered my family and you think he should just be left alone because tracking him down and killing him is "coercion"?
I call it justice.

1. I didn't say he should be left alone.
2. He loses all his freedom if he loses his life. Thus, the action is coercive. You might find coercion to be "justice," but I find it immoral.

Punishing murderers is justice, not coercion.

Punishment is coercion. And I believe freedom is justice, but that's my personal view.

And yet in our so very autocratic and harsh prisons you want to make less autocratic and harsh, they will be competently restrained?

They are being constrained in the wrong respects. Drug prohibition, for instance, is huge a constraint, but substantially increases other types of crime.

Like it or not, people do murder others in prison and some escape and murder people on then outside. Executing a murderer ensures they won'd do it again, now that's prevention.

There's been absolutely no serious effort by prison authorities to end violence in prisons. In fact, prison authorities have often actively increased it.

As for prisoners escaping, that's an incredibly small chance. Killing them isn't justified to mitigate such a small chance.

But prevention is the rationale for the drug war nonetheless. That means there's a flaw in your argument, not in mine.

Why?

When retaliation is the only valid reason for punishing a person, only those who violate the rights of others are punished.

Why is this a valid reason? You haven't justified this. This is the flaw in your argument.

Just who is incapable of revenge? The bully sure wouldn't know and he'd probably learn some respect if a former victim paid him a surprise visit.

The weak, the friendless. People don't think about the consequences when they committ crimes. No one's going to rob a store believing they will be caught. They do it in cases where they think they won't be caught.

[qutoe]That isn't pre-emption, we punish drug users pre-emptively based on what we think they might do, not because of what they've done. We may soon be invading Iraq to pre-empt an Iraqi supported terrorist attack on the USA, but that attack hasn't happened in the past.[/quote]

That's right. But in both cases, these pre-emptive attacks are not justified as they will not increase freedom.

Ahem, you advocate taking his freedom too. He forfeits his rights when he took away the rights of his victims.

I don't believe in natural rights, so am not tied to that baggage. I'm demonstrating the flaw in your ethics system. I repeat, why does he forefeit his rights when he takes away rights of his victims?

Don't you mean inaction?

"Inaction" is also an action.

Does that mean you're killing people in Africa who starve to death since you aren't there giving them your food? Equating inaction with coercion defies logic.

Coercion is the existence constraints on people. If I have the capacity to save the lives of these people in Africa, but don't, I am participating in an act of coercion.

Don't be silly, petty theft doesn't warrant the death penalty.

Why not? I have no more natural rights. I thought it was moral to do whatever you want to someone without natural rights.

Still being silly.

How can I when your ethics system is silly?
Where's the flaw in my logic?

But that doesn't change the fact that your motive of prevention means the "innocent" - murderers who won't murder in the future - are being horribly "coerced". That's another flaw in your "prevention" argument.

That's not a flaw, that's the whole point. They are being coerced to a horrible degree. But this coercion prevents even more coercion under ideal circumstances. Which are the only times that prison can be justified.

So we disagree, justice matters in my philosophy.

I think your "justice" is tyranny and aurthority.

Then my position might not be immoral and your position might be immoral, too many "mights" to make declarative statements about morality.

It's not a mere might (I only use might since I cannot generalize for all circumstances). Revenge can justify horrible things such as the death penalty. Thus, I can make a declarative statement about morality.

"Serious constraints"? Like constraints imposed by tyrants? As I have repeatedly said, the desire to live is universal and the burdens imposed by others don't change that fact just because some people would rather die than live as slaves. Remove the burden and you remove the desire to end the suffering. I don't know why you keep arguing this point, it's so obvious.

Sure, tyrants. Or the sun. Or the Earth. Or the human body. Or any peers. Or any number of things. There is no such thing as life without constraint.

So why don't people commit suicide as soon as they are able? Because it takes alot of pain before such a drastic measure is considered.

Sure, I'm not disputing that. People committ suicide generally due to constraint. These constraints are not necessarily man-made.

Using the fact some people violate the rights of others as a refutation of natural rights is as illogical as claiming some civil rights violations means civil rights don't exist either.

1. You skirted my main point. Why do I own myself?
2. No, I said in a slave owning system, some people may morally view themselves as property of their owners. In a fascist system, some people may morally view themselves property of the state. This indicates that some people believe they don't own themselves.

And arbitrariness in a "moral" system is an oxymoron.

What does that mean? Any philosophical system can be arbitrarily constructed within a human brain. Why are moral systems any different?

Because I cannot take your labor or property without taking part of your life. If you spent 10 years working to buy a home and I stole it, I just stole 10 years of your life.

No, my life is not my labor or property. They aren't the same thing. If you take away something I've been working on for those 10 years, you have not taken away my existence of 10 years or my future existence.