NB: This post is intended for an audience versed in Ayn Rand's political theory, particularly in her views on the purpose of government and the reasons we must delegate our right to self-defence in non-emergency situations to the government.
NB: In what follows, I'm not considering emergency situations where you don't have time to wait for the government to act. But even in those cases, what I say applies as soon as the emergency is over and you can put the issue in the government's hands.
In his first podcast of the year, Dr. Peikoff answered Trey's question about the legitimacy of the theft in the CRU climate scandal, saying that since the scientists were "aiding and abetting a group of killers" that it was perfectly moral. I'm going to have to disagree with Dr. Peikoff here, based on my understanding of the principle of the rule of law.
In my view, the rule of law is essentially the consistent adherence to the fact that you have delegated your rights of self-defence (and thus only applies when such delegation is the appropriate course of action). Since you have granted the government the exclusive right to retaliatory force, you can't just turn around and decide that in some cases you can take it back and become a vigilante. This would invalidate one of the main reasons for delegating self-defence to a third-party: to ensure the objective application of retaliatory force in society. So long as the government is still a valid government (and the standards for determining when a government has lost its validity are well beyond the scope of this post), you can't punish people for violating your rights, kill a sadistic serial killer in cold blood, steal back property stolen from you by your neighbour, or hack into university servers and steal files. Performing any of these actions would amount to declaring revolution/war against your government, which is an action that should not be taken lightly and, once taken, must be taken to it's logical conclusion: fight until the rotten government is gone or has changed. Half-measures in this realm are attempts at having your cake and eat it to: they admit the desire to benefit from the existence of a lawful, civilized society while rejecting the actions (delegation of retaliatory force) that make such a society possible.
So what if you think that the way the government is handling certain issues in inadequate? Then you should attempt to change the government... Via legal channels. Report a crime, lobby your legislature, write letters to the editor decrying the lack of action, be as noisy, persistent, annoying, etc. as you want, but do it without using force. This may mean that certain injustices are never rectified, but so long as the government is a proper one, that is a price worth paying for the immense benefits gained by being part of civilized society.
So, in regards to the CRU scandal, the question of whether or not the CRU scientists or the government could be legitimately classified as "a group of killers" is irrelevant to the justifiability of the actions of the hackers. Unless the hackers are taking a principled stand against all UK government (which means attempting revolution if they live in the UK, and an illegitimate attempt to declare war on behalf of their country if they don't) and are justified in doing so, they are simple criminals and should be tried as such. This doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be allowed to use the information gained (unless they put the hackers up to it) in order to investigate and possibly persecute any wrong-doing, but the hackers should still be subject to the full force of the law.
There is a side issue which doesn't directly relate to the CRU scandal, but is still relevant to the topic of the rule of law principle. There are many, both in and out of Objectivism, who claim that the rule of law means that all laws of the land have to be followed. I disagree with this interpretation. First of all, at least in America today, this would be impossible due to the completely non-objective, contradictory nature of some law. Try reading the entirety of the anti-trust law, for example, and tell me how I could possibly do any business without in some way violating it. More fundamentally, though, we don't enter into civilized societies under the condition of allowing the government to tell us what to do, we enter into civilized societies under the condition of ceding the use of retaliatory force. So if there is a law which would not entail the use of retaliatory force if broken (such as laws against marijuana, or forming trusts, or selling raw milk), I believe one is morally allowed to break the law IF the benefits to be gained outweigh the risks and consequences of getting caught. If one is caught, however, under the rule of law one must stay within the legal process to fight the case (i.e., no perjury, no witness threatening, etc.), since enforcement and prosecution of crimes _is_ a part of the government's proper job, even if the broken law is illegitimate.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Hmmm... I think Dr. Peikoff's point here is not that the government was handling the situation inadequately, but that because it's a fraud they are incapable of handling it in the right way. As such, the government would end up being complicit in all the wrong-doing fueled by the fraud those other people created.
Consider a parallel situation like in the movie the Fugitive. He couldn't prove his innocence without breaking the law. I don't think it was immoral for him to break the law there.
But I think the hackers should be sought out and tried. Just like Howard Roark was arrested for blowing up Cortlandt Homes.
Also, for your readers, here's a link to my post on that particular podcast.
Thanks for commenting, Trey!
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "because it's a fraud they are incapable of handling it in the right way." Do you mean that, since the government was involved in the fraud, they couldn't prosecute it, or do you mean that, because certain information was hidden, the government wouldn't know whom to prosecute? In the former case, there are plenty examples in history of government corruptions that were exposed and the government actors punished. In the second case, I don't see how the hackers could have access to information that justified their "search" that they couldn't have simply have given to the police for a legitimate search.
I haven't seen Fugitive. What's the premise there?
As for Roark: There are a few ways in which his case doesn't parallel this one. First, there's a real sense in which Cortdlandt Homes was Roark's property, that doesn't really apply here. Second, as you mention, Roark immediately took responsibility for his action and was willing to bear the consequences, which is not the case here. That being said, I'm not completely sure I agree that Roark was fully justified in the approach he took. His method seems to hinge on the idea that he couldn't sue the government. If that were literally true (i.e. the government was exempt from legal oversight), then that would likely be a good case for all-out revolution, to be fought until government changed or went away. If Roark could have sued but thought there was no chance of winning, then I think he should have asked if the reasons for him having no chance invalidated the government as a whole or not. If so, then revolution, and if not, then he should have tried to sue, tried to change policies, etc. rather than act outside of the law while benefitting from the order it provides. This stance is a bit ironic, given the essay I wrote to win 2nd place in The Fountainhead essay contest (I wrote that Roark was justified in dynamiting the housing complex).
I mean it's fraud, so the government does not have the truth; it is operating under premises that do not correspond to reality and as a result is behaving in a way that would not be justified if they did. I don't mean that the government is corrupt. And it is extremely unlikely that giving the information to the police would not result in any criminal charges being brought given the nature of the information, the topic, and the levels of abstraction between that information and the government's actions which Dr. Peikoff says leads to killing.
In The Fugitive, this guy is tried and convicted for the murder of his wife. On his way to prison, he escapes, and runs away from the police a lot. And eventually he uncovers proof of his innocence, but getting there involves all sorts of assault and other crimes.
In the Roark scenario, he knows he doesn't own that housing complex and that the terms of his agreement with Keating cannot be defended legally. He entered the agreement with that explicit understanding.
I am ambivalent here because on one hand I do agree that there is necessarily a principle about the rule of law and I know that our friends in the government are neither omnipotent nor omniscient so mistakes will be made from time to time. However, that principle is contingent upon the government actually doing its job. It's difficult for me to let go of the higher value of justice because of the government's corruption or incompetence.
I see you've already narrowed the principle from "obey all laws" to something like "obey all laws except those of a certain type". You speak about laws that cannot be followed (e.g. anti-trust). Also -- from the marijuana example -- I assume you're exempting laws that are designed to protect people from their own voluntary decisions that the government judges to be unwise.
What about illegal immigration? Would you classify it as a marijuana-type law? What about an example of an illegal immigrant who comes to the border and finds a fence that he can break. It is not his property; it is owned by the government of the country he seeks to enter. Should he not violate the rule of law by breaking the barbed wire in one place?
What about Roark? Would you have found him guilty if you were on his jury? If not, why not?
Trey:
"I mean it's fraud, so the government does not have the truth; it is operating under premises that do not correspond to reality and as a result is behaving in a way that would not be justified if they did."
But isn't this the case with all fraud? That doesn't prevent the government from investigating other cases.
"And it is extremely unlikely that giving the information to the police would not result in any criminal charges being brought given the nature of the information, the topic, and the levels of abstraction between that information and the government's actions which Dr. Peikoff says leads to killing."
I'm going to assume you meant "would result" rather than "would not result" above. My point was that either the hackers had good reason to suspect fraud before the attack, or they didn't. If they did, then they could have explained that reasoning to the police and had them investigate, and if they didn't, then they shouldn't have hacked regardless. As to whether the police would take action: If the fraud involved were truly so abstract (like putting forth a false philosophical theory), then I don't think retaliatory force is warranted. Should Kant have been executed as a conspirator to mass-murder and destruction? The point here is that these scientists lied and falsified data, which is a concrete fraud, both to the journals they submitted to and the governments who paid them. The more abstract sort of evil, even if it leads to force, should not be responded to with force.
"It's difficult for me to let go of the higher value of justice because of the government's corruption or incompetence."
The problem with a stance like that is that it completely invalidates the purpose of government, which is to have an objective party in charge of issues of justice that involve retaliatory force. An inability to let go of a particular injustice and acting to rectify it with force amounts to saying "I will let the government be the objective institution of justice... So long as they do what I think." If that sort of approach were accepted widely, then it would lead to anarchy just as much as having no government would.
I want to make another point: In addition to taking retaliatory force out of the hands of each individual and being an objective party, a proper government also has its whole existence dedicated to the deliverance of justice. This means that it will work to develop evidentiary standards, rules of trials, etc. that allow it to be more certain about the proper use of force than a normal individual. As a specialized entity, a proper government is more qualified to enact justice, even if you claim that you should be allowed to if you want (which I don't think you're actually claiming).
Realist Theorist:
"I see you've already narrowed the principle from "obey all laws" to something like "obey all laws except those of a certain type"."
That's not how I'd put it. My point is that government is not something to be obeyed, but it is something with the sole provence over non-emergency retaliatory force. Thus, I would state the principle positively as "Leave the government in charge of enacting retaliatory force" and negatively as "Don't enact retaliatory force in your capacity as a private citizen."
"Also -- from the marijuana example -- I assume you're exempting laws that are designed to protect people from their own voluntary decisions that the government judges to be unwise. "
That's one category I exempt, but that's because breaking that law does not entail enacting force, retaliatory or otherwise.
"What about illegal immigration? Would you classify it as a marijuana-type law?"
That's a tough one. I agree with Harry Binswanger here: there may be legitimate cause for some sort of border agents stopping criminals or those carrying infectious diseases, but all others should be let in. So someone sneaking in, even if they're not a criminal or diseased, is preventing the government from performing a legitimate action. On the other hand, they're not really using force so... I'm not sure. I'd have to think more.
"What about an example of an illegal immigrant who comes to the border and finds a fence that he can break. It is not his property; it is owned by the government of the country he seeks to enter. Should he not violate the rule of law by breaking the barbed wire in one place?"
He should not be allowed to destroy another's property. Except in the case of someone being held captive in another's property and having no ability to contact the police (an emergency situation), of course.
"What about Roark? Would you have found him guilty if you were on his jury? If not, why not?"
I would have found him guilty. As time goes on, I become less and less convinced that Roark was justified in his action. This will be the subject of a future blog post.
Cogito,
Thanks for the reply.
1) I don't see why the only principled way to look at a government and its laws as an all-or-nothing proposition: and either delegate all retaliatory force or be in full rebellion. It is possible to use a different razor -- a sub-principle -- to divide the concretes.
2) Another example that comes to my mind (more serious than the illegal immigrant one): take any a moral U.S. citizen from the 1700s up to the civil war. Should he have either obeyed slave-holding laws or been in open rebellion against the U.S.?
For instance, suppose someone had an opportunity to smuggle a slave north, should he have not done so unless he also wanted to start a revolution?
Since the slave was considered legal property of someone else, would this not be the same as taking away non-human property held by someone under the color of bad law?
Realist Theorist:
"It is possible to use a different razor -- a sub-principle -- to divide the concretes."
Do you have a specific principle in mind? If not, that statement is essentially devoid of content.
"For instance, suppose someone had an opportunity to smuggle a slave north, should he have not done so unless he also wanted to start a revolution?
Since the slave was considered legal property of someone else, would this not be the same as taking away non-human property held by someone under the color of bad law?"
The fact that the slave was considered legal property of someone else is irrelevant: the slave was not, in fact, legal property, and hiding a slave in your basement or giving him passage north is not using force, retaliatory or otherwise, against another. A tougher question is whether one would be justified in, say, forming a militia and storming a farm to free its slaves. In that case, I would say that yes, you should essentially rebel against the government, which is basically what happened with the civil war.
Once again, thanks for your post. I cannot say that I have an excellent razor. That's why the discussion interests me. Personally, I use a blunt razor of "seriousness". That raises more questions, and I'm loath to go deeper in public.
As to the slavery example...
I agree that a slave is not (legitimately) legal property. Does that mean that each person may decide what is and is not legitimate property, regardless of what the law says?
Rule out claims you would consider immoral. Rule out a claim by a Marxist that businessmen get their money by theft. Is the principle that we may snatch away property that actually and objectively is illegitimately held?
Is there legitimacy to the whole apparatus set up by the government to let "scientists" create documents postulating AGW, which will then be used as the basis to deny many more legitimate rights to people?
I don't think there's a difference, and I assume that you'd agree (at least roughly).
However, having agreed, you seem to suggest that the slave-saver should be in full rebellion. I don't understand what this means. Suppose he lives in Illinois in 1830 and managed to help a slave escape when he was visiting the south. Must he now take up arms against the U.S.A.? Must he dedicate his life to saving more slaves or to fighting the Southern states, even in absence of support that would make this practical?
Post a Comment