Log of "Objective Law". Held on irc Undernet channel #GeekSpeak on Friday, Jan. 27. 1996 starting at 11pm Eastern Time. Copyright 1996 Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. No redistribution is allowed without prior permission. Entries starting with ">" are from Jasra Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Tonight's topic is "Objective Law". Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that: 1. All logs from #GeekSpeak are the copyright of the channel owners: Tom Wright and myself (Pankaj Saxena). No copying or redistribution of the logs is allowed without the prior written permission of the channel owners. 2. The discussion will be held in keyword-protected mode. You received the keyword in yesterday's email. If you see some one online, who, in your judgement, would not disrupt the discussion on this channel, you may message him/her the keyword to join the channel. Okay. I'll start by asking someone to define "law". Anyone? Let TomM in, Wright. A law is a rule which prohibits an action or actions. Proscriptions flowing from the gvt's monopoly on force. A law is a rule of conduct enforced by government force. law: forced code of behavior. Send all requests re the channel to me Okay, so it's a rule of conduct established by government, under penalty of the use of force. Which must be obeyed, under penalty of force, that is. Next, what's the purpose of laws? Laws are there to establish Individual Rights, if we are talking about objective law. To encourage or discourage certain kinds of conduct. TomM: Right, I'm asking: what's the objective purpose of laws. Coercion to act, or prohibition from acting Tom: To establish Individual Rights? To protect individual rights OOps...I mean to protect Individual Rights. Sube, to establsih individual rights as the rule of law Laws are a deterent with the purpuse of protecting individual rights. How about "to protect people against the use of force"? -u+o To allow man to live Subetai: or fraud... What's the simplest and most direct answer? Individual rights are not established by law. Subetai: against the initiation of force. Tom: Let's say "direct or indirect use of force". That would include fraud, right? Sube, read waht I said again Where does property fit in against force? I believe rights are broader Dino, _enforcement_ of laws are a deterent. Subetai: yes. Clay: It's not clear to me. The purpose of law is to systematize the forced code of behavior, with the express intent of protecting individual rights. Subetai, by using the word *as*, I am indicating that something preexisting is being established *as* a matter of governance... Freeman: How about simlpifying that to: The purpose of laws is to protect individuals from the direct or indirect use of force. Established Limits on Action Clay: I'm not talking about the role of laws in governing a country, but simply asking what the purpose of laws is. ok Hello? The purpose of laws is to protect man against the *unwarranted* direct or indirect use of force How about the law's purpose being to punish those who violate rights? sub: laws have a dual purpose. 1. to limit the actions of government and 2. to define those actions (right violating actions) that will not be tolerated Betsy: My point. Force is an instrument of the (just) government alone Betsy: Would it not be more basic to say "to protect the innocent"? Betsy, wouldn't that imply that a law's fucntion is to punish rather than to "restrict" action? The use of force can't promote or protect anything directly. B: (enforcement punishes.) The _initiation_ of force can't be used to promote or protect anything. Betsy: How about the use of force to prevent a burgulary in progress? Or its use in preventing a violent person from escalating his violence? Does force not protect against the use of force there? Sub: Protect the innocent? From what? After a crime has been committed its too late for protection. What a victim wants is justice. Betsy: While the crime is being committed? Or in preventing a more serious crime from happening? Sub: That's self-defense, with the govt acting as the citizen's agent of self defense. Okay, given the purpose of laws, what are Objective Laws? What do they do? Justice DOES protect people's rights if criminals expect to get punished for crimes, but that is not the primary purpose of govt force. Betsy: what is the primary purpose? Protect individual rights, provide for the nonexistence of force in interpersonal relationships in society. (sorry, a ver bad connect). The primary purpose of govt force should be justice. It should be used only against those who use force. Betsy: retribution? Freeman: In other words, laws that serve the objective purpose of protecting people from the use of force are objective laws? Troy: Retribution, (objective) vengeance, treating a person as he deserves to be treated ... justice. I'll get to "punishment" and "retribution" in a minute. Sub: Objectve laws are measure there appropriateness by how well they protect individual rights. there=their measured by thier (can't type tonight) Freeman: Okay. Laws that protect people from violations of their rights are Objective laws? Subetai: in a broader sense, objective laws are those where you know what the consequences ahead of time. Tym: What if the consequences are evil? Tym: Should we add something to that? Sub: yes. Subetai: in this broader sense, you have objective and nonobjective unjust laws. Make that clearer, Tym. Objectivity of laws has to do with their clarity and predictability, not with their correctness or goodness. Subetai: for example, the fundamental reason why antitrust laws are nonobjective is because you can't know if yr violating the law ahead of time. Betsy: wouldnt that allow for objective unjust laws? Objective unjust laws, to give an example, are laws such as the income tax, which say, pay or go to jail, you know where you stand if you don't obey I need to move on a bit. We've covered some definitions. Next question: what's the connection between morality and legality? Sub: the actions taken under the law should not violate morality how ever not every immoral act is subject to law Troy: Yes. "You can't sneeze on Tuesday" is an objective and unjust law. "You can't hurt other people" (with no further definition) is a non-objective law. Troy: Elaborate...the law is **not** there to encforce a morality. Ideally, they should be closely linked, provied the morality itself is just also. provied=provided TomM: agreed. If you promised to take your kid to the circus and you dont, it is immoral to break a promise (with no force majeur causing the breakage) but it is not a legal matter Troy: i mean it is not up to the law to make sure everyone in a society acts morally (or according to a specific moral code). TomM: that is right. Law deals with wrongful acts of force, or with frauds * Madelaine is away - -=cig break=- - all messages will be saved. TomM: and perhaps reckless endangerment So all laws should be moral, but only those immoral actions should be legislated against that violate the rights of others? Sub: that sounds like it is in the right direction Subetai: it is better to say that all laws should uphold individual rights. Sub: are there any surpise consequences from that principle? The law is there to ensure that no one is allowed to escape the consequence of their actions. Freeman: which actions? Freeman: Nope...the law will not enforce the fact that you skip breakfast, for instance. TomM: Right. That's not a definition of objective laws. I asked what, if any, relationship existed between morality and legality. Freeman: publically humiliating a person is not necessarily a matter for law Subetai: Only this: One needs to be free so that one can be moral...morality being a code of values accepted by choice. Okay, from passing the consequences of your actions onto other people. again, which actions? Legality is how we properly and justly deal with people who violate the rights of others by force. By the law, in many of these contexts we are really meaning the government, the agency enforcing the law TomM: Laws ensuring freedom are moral laws, of course. Subetai: Sure, but that is a different issue. Laws mandating restituion in case of wrongful possession are likewise moral Okay. One more thing before we move on. Can someone give me some examples of the indirect use of force? In other contexts we might properly and justly deal with people by marrying them, giving them a raise, ostracizing them, etc. verbal threat of physical action TomM: You missed the question while you got disconnected. Betsy: Right. Subetai: i know... sub: bad checks, mail fraud, Fraud, libel, slander, malicious prosecution if I say in a convincing manner that I will kill you if you dont do something, for example Freeman: Instead of concrete instances, categorize that. Crimes againt someone's person. Crimes against their property, for example. Say I tell someone a car is worth $10,000.00, but it's only worth, say, $1,000.00...that would constitute fraud. Sub: no, that is direct Troy: Threatening force -- called assault -- is quite direct. but it is not force per se Troy: Fraud is a crime against property. That is quite indirect. however it has the substance of force, so it is not allowed Holding property without the real owner's consent is indirect force. Betsy: Right. That would include fraud. that would include robbery and tricky possession aka fraud In indirect force, the force consists of only the possession and not in the means (direct force) by which the property was acquired. Betsy: That's true, but indirect force also includes giving false information, say to sell a product. Okay. Let's get to what we were talking about when I asked about the purpose of law: retribution. I included it in "sentencing". Why does the law punish the guilty? How is justice served? What purpose does punishment serve? Retribution? Deterrent? Warning to wrongdoers? Betsy: for example accepting mail from a delivery person as he approaches the door, but you do not live there In robbery the property was acquired by force. In fruad it was acquired with the owner's consent but is kept _without_ the owner's consent all and each of the above Deterrent and Warning is the same, Sube. also the law should mandate restitution when possible to make the victim as whole as possible Justice is served by getting back the property, or taking away the offender's ability to live his life (to the extent he forceably interfered with another's life). Victim compensation, Troy? I's say retribution with everything else being a desirable consequence. by the theif BillC :-) Bill: Okay. I meant "deterrent" in the sense of telling the guilty not to do it again, and "warning" in the sense of telling potential lawbreakers that bad consequences await them. But that's okay. ah... Then the two could be considered separate then. So what's the purpose of punishment? How exactly is justice served? the distinction is hardly worth arguing about a harm for a harm a pain for a pain a wound for a would wound Troy: Or and heye for an heye. You treat people as they have treated others. Troy: that's retribution. Troy: Would you advocate beating someone up who was convicted of beating up someone else? that principle essential says the punishment and the crime should be commensurate Justice served by "retribution." Further violations dissuaded by the demonstration of the retrubution, Sube. a good horsewhipping might be just the thing You make a public moral statement of the public moral standard with respect to the use of force. Betsy: corporal punishment? Punishment makes criminals bear the consequences of their own actions. Retribution and restitution are big parts of that. corporal punishement could have a place in objective law and its enforcement It doesn't necessarily have to be an eye for an eye, but you do have to have a punishment _morally_ commensurate with the crime. Restitution may not be possible...for instance in murder...or if the criminal has no money. Betsy: that is the common interpretation of an eye for an eye. The commenseration between punishement and crime Betsy: How do you measure a beating aginst a jail term? What's the unit of "morally commensurate"? Tom, but the miscreant has TIME., Bill: i would be for forced labor for getting compensation, though it may not be very effective. If he refuses to do anything...well, he's already in jail ;) Is there a point to be made here: crimes are committed by irrational people. Punishment has the sanction of moral people. Therefore, there's a difference between how the crime was committed and how the punishment is inflicted. Not quite "an eye for an eye"? Subetai: The rationality of the enforcers would insure "eye for an eye". Subetai: but you deserve the causal sequence you enact aginst oters. +h Tym: You may deserve it, but that doesn't equate with you getting it. That requires the involvement of someone else. For instance, if someone steals my car, and wrecks it, it may not be possible for me to be compensated by the criminal. Editor's Note: There was a large net split here TomM: Literally? If someone damages your eye, the law should put out the eye of the criminal? (assuming insurance will not cover it all). That simplifies things ;) Subetai: Actually, taken litteraly, it may not be enough. Okay, moving on - when are you justified in taking the law into your own hands? Subetai: Only in case of an emergency, or as a last resort (like the police are hours away, and someone has a gun on you NOW). That's about the worst netsplit I've ever seen... Gardner: If it is, where? <_Ghaki> you could use the BotNet TomM: Okay, so when you need to defend yourself and there is no law around. Subetai: yes. Continuing with that - if you have to defend yourself, should you be concerned with measuring your response in proportiona to the threat? Here I am. Subetai: Are you asking at what point one can morally reject the law? Wright: I am, but I was disconnected for quite some time (and come on late). > I'm logging. Hello? <_Ghaki> brb Nitin: It's not "rejection". Sub: If you are willing to take the consequences of getting caught. Subetai: Yes and no...you should handle the situation as best possible under the circumstances...but, be prepared to face the law later. Okay. So we have two instances: (1) Self defence, (2) To make a point, like Roark did, for example, in blowing up the project. npandya: One is never morally in a position to reject the law...unless it is grossly immoral...but, again, be prepared to face the legal consequences. In a rational society, (2) would not be needed. Subetai: Not really...Roark had *no* legal recourse. Any answers to my second question? In defending your life or property, should you be concerned about measuring your response to the threat? If a burgler breaks into your house, should you shoot him in the leg or in the head? Also, if you (as a private citizen) act to prevent a crime, you are legally responsible for the legal battle to cofme. Subetai: It had better be commensurate with the crime, or **you** will spend time in jail. Is there a moral principle involved there? Subetai: yes, an eye for an eye. Justice! TomM: So self-defense should be commensurate to the objective threat. Subetai: Indeed. Anyone else? Roark didn't blow up the building to make a point but to enforce his property rights -- which he should have been able to do in court, but couldn't. Betsy: My point exactly/. Betsy: property rights are ownership rights? Does an architect have property rights to a building? (Roark also blew up the building to bring the novel to a dramatic climax ;-) ). Subetai: Depends on the contract. Betsy: he wasn't writing _The Fountainhead_ ;) Tom: It wasn't in Roark's contract that he had any ownership to the buildings. Sub: The law sets up the standard of what is appropriate self-defense. Subetai: He could design the buildidng, and be willing to let it go at that. Subetai: Yes Justice. Okay. Discussion is officially over. But we can continue, as long as we want. Subetai: yes he did...he said it could be build **only** to his specifications. subetai: I say it should be commensurate. There's a massive lag here. Usually you may use whatever force is necessary to remove the threat, but if you can reasonable believe you are in immanent danger of being killed, almost anything goes. subetai: If a guy is stealing my trashcan, I don't kill him. subetai: If it is in the contract. Sube: That's circular. Property rights are the rights (_actions_ in a social context) to _use_ (action) and _dispose_ of (action) particular material things. Okay. In the burgler scenario, you think that if you confront him, he'll fight, and then you're in danger of being killed. If you keep quiet, the only danger is to your property, for which you cannot take his life. If you confront him and cripple him, he might kill you. What should you do? changing servers Subetai: Call the police ;) Betsy: Did Roark have the right to use and/or dispose of the buildings he designed? Sub: It was in Roark's contract with Keating and in Keating's contract with the govt -- which was breached. TomM; He cut your phone line. Subetai: You can forcebly detain him, but not much else, unless it is clear he is out to kill you. Roark's "payment" was that the building would be erected as designed. He said in the trial that "I was not paid."\ Subetai: i.e. make a citizen's arrest. Okay. I'm done. *puts a fork in Subetai* someone ping me please? > Mike *laugh* Man, BillC is lagged by almost 40 minutes! I think I'm lagging...could someone please ping me and tell me the results? I saw hal9001 over on norman. He wants oped. TomM: That's the problem. In real situations, forcing a confrontation (like making a citizen's arrest) puts your life in jeopardy. Most police officers would recommend that you either call the police, or if you can't, keep quiet. There's experience behind that. rex - 4 sec Thanks! Subetai: yes, that's why I said call the police...or, of course, stay hidden. Sub: The current law assumes that ANYONE who breaks into your home at night is capable if killing you and you are justified in using deadly force against him. Ok, I'm not lagged. Just tired! * TomM is tired of being lagged. Betsy: It would be moral to shoot him in the head? Jasra: We went to Friday's again tonight. They got a cute, but clueless, greeater. She's a redhead, but she's young and didn't hold a conversation worth anything. The cute elf-chick was there. She gets cuter every time I see her. She stopped by our table and said "hi" to us. Laura was there, but she didn't say anything to us. :-/ Betsy, really? You don't have to prove that the intruder is a hard threat? Did someone say redhead!? Yeah. I'm tired of being lagged too. We should think about moving discussions to the botnet. Roak had the right of _disposal_ (part of property rights) of the physical embodiments of his ideas (Cortlandt). He disposed of it in exchange for a promise that it would be built as designed. He was not paid. Betsy: i think we get the point. That might be from another session Tom... I had to restart. Betsy: Right. It was a breach of contract. BillC: yes...it was from my ping when I first got on. Sub: If you're going to shoot a burglar, I would recommend the head. Oops....there goes HAL... Good night all. Bye Lee. Betsy: Yes. I was asking if it was moral to shoot a burglar in the head, if you caught him. Betsy: That would get awfully messy. is the burglar armed? (and a difficult target in the dark). Sub: Depends on the context. It might be immoral if it were risky to you, or unnecessary to stop him, etc. Or if the police would throw you in jail, which they will in many places. Betsy: He's stealing stuff that belongs to you. He doesn't know you're watching. You could lock your bedroom door and go back to bed. You'd lose some property, but that would be all. Would it be moral to shoot him in the head? Sub: It would be pretty dumb. Subetai: Going back to bed may be suicidal. Betsy: Would it be moral? What, are you going to stop, turn on the light, and interview the guy to see if he plans on breaking down your bedroom door and harming you? Be real. you don't have a phone to call 911? * RexMundi ops HAL :) You would loose time earning the money to replace the items (assuming that they aren;t insured) madelaine: No, he cut your phone line. Jon: Was that for me? Sub: It is also possible that you would be so _reasonably_ scared that you couldn't do a very good job of analyzing the situation. That's why the law is very lenient with people who shoot people breaking into their homes at night. Betsy: My question is, is it *moral*? Someone who plans a burglery has probably planned for dealiong with the homeowner if caught. my first idea would be to get out..be safe...if you bring out a gun, most likely he'll turn it on you Hey, I know how I'd deal with a burgler. That's not what I'm asking. Sub: Depends on context. Might be. Might not be. Subetai: Self-defense is moral. Has anyone here ever written an analysis of the "GNU Manifesto"? < If twelve masked men with guns cut your phone line, glued your doors shut, and raided your refrigerator for beer & chips while they watched TV and played poker in your living room, would it be moral to shoot them? Would it be moral to cheat at the poker game? no, i don't think life and property are one...you're life is not threatened, just your property, i don't think it would be okay to shoot him What if they were betting your stuff? Mike: It think Betsy's point is that you don't have to know the specifics of why they are there. bazyar: I looked at it a while ago - I thought it was basically anti-property rights. I think I posted something on OSG Finally! A real lawyer! Hi JonG. TomM: I agree. I'm making a different point. * _reason applauds x A real lawyer? Where? *looks around, frantic* A reasonable man would assume that someone who breaks into your house at night is a bad dude and might hurt you. Betsy: I gave you the context. That's my question. What makes it moral or immoral? The scenario I gave was that he broke in, you saw him, he didn't see you, you can't call for help. You can lock yourself in a room with your gun pointed at the door, you can go back to sleep, or you can shoot him in the head before he knows what's happening. Is the third choice moral? Hi, Betsy. :) <_reason> yes <_reason> the heart would be fine, too Subetai: She has been answering you for the past ten minutes. <_reason> so the police can show up 30 minutes later and vacuum up your remains? TomM: No, she's told me what would be dumb or wise. I'd decide that based on my experience. My question was is it moral to shoot him. Sub: A moral man might hide or he might be so upset that he wouldn't make an optimum choice. That fact that he's too upset to think straight is the _burglar's_ fault -- not his. Subetai: Yes...so long as you think he is a threat to your life. Let's see. You _know_ you can't call for help. That means you've tried, or you saw him cut the wires. If you know you can't call for help, and it's his fault, then you know also that he doesn't want you to call for help. You'd better do _something_ to stop him, _whatever_ he plans to do. * _reason knows two people who shot and killed burglars. sub: the third choice is moral and I would say the safest. you cannot spend time trying to guess the buglar's intentions and abilities (firepower). you have to assume the worst and shoot first without notice. <_reason> there is nothing to analyze <_reason> nonsense <_reason> unless you ask him politely if he would like it and then give it to him what!? just up and kill him when he hasn't even threatened your life!? <_reason> yes Betsy: It's happened to me before. I've refrained from shooting, *because* I didn't think killing him was justified. I wanted someone else's take on it. Subetai: did he serve time? madelaine: He's threatened your life by being there. Sub: Under the conditions you outlines it is NOT a moral issue for the victim. "Morality ends where a gun begins." <_reason> if one masked naked lady broke in, i might act a bit differently madelaine: You can reasonably believe he represents a threat to your life without waiting for him to make a direct threat. TomM: No Subetai: Then you should ahve at least winged him ;) Betsy: I wasn't thinking in terms of what the moral issue was for him. I agree that he gave up his rights. I'm thinking from my own perspective. Do I take a life for that reason. Hello Aquinas reason: How did she get in...using her knockers? ;) hello rkm <_reason> the big questions is this: if you catch a burglar in your house, day or night, is it moral to torture him first before you blow his head off? i disagree, plenty of people steal that wouldn't kill...no, sub, you stand at the door with the gun and wait The courts these days force your hand. If you use physical force to try to stop a criminal at all, you had _better_ kill him, or he can sue you for 100 times more than he could have carried away. uh-oh backshortly Sub: Morality doesn't apply to YOU. The burglar has forced a situation in which you do not have a real choice. <_reason> absolutely moral <_reason> it is immoral not to blow his brains out <_reason> even if it is a 14 year old kid Mike: That would not weigh with me. I wouldn't take a life because it was convenient that way. Betsy: But I perceive that I *do* have choice. I can choose not to kill him. Subetai: It's not a matter of convenience. It's a matter of you killing him or living in slavery to him. Mike: No * _reason hates crooks me neither...a life is a life, yes he gave away his rights, but he's only taking your things for now, no phisical force, no threat on your life, you do not just up and kill him just cos you have the right to Sub: If a crook sticks a gun in your ribs and says, "Your money or your life" it's not a "choice." Mike: The choices are: killing him, not killing him but also not letting myself get robbed, losing property and not killing him. * _reason used to know someone who at the age of 16 or so killed a man who stopped to help him fix his car that was broken down on the side of the road Sub: how much property? When the jerk stuck the gun in my ribs and threatened my life, he made the choice to die! reason: waht became of him? <_reason> shoot first, call for help later Subetai: If you had god-like control over his actions, those _might_ be the choices available. Betsy: That's why I gave the elaborate example of the burgler. He hasn't threatened my life, just my property. It's not "your money of your life, it's just your money". hola Gardner! I'm feeling very TFWO right now. Mike: Doesn't take god-like control. I've been there. <_reason> right Sub: how much money? > Mark: What's that mean? Rex: Doesn't matter. Totally F**king Weirded Out. <_reason> him just being there is a threat to your life Sub: I think that ten dollard vs. a million matters. Context matters. dollars, even. Are you still trying to determine the morality of the actions, or what you speculate you would do in any such situation, and what the outcome would be? RexMundi: Really? Who would have guessed! Sub: If he breaks into your house at night, the law holds that it is reasonable to assume he is threatening your life. jon: the morality. I know the answer to the other. MikeH: no, really! Gardner: Why weeird? <_reason> whatever you believe, he is a threat to your life <_reason> no. shoot to kill. if you shoot to injure, you are very, very, very stupid I'm at this moment using Microsoft Internet Explorer. For Macintosh. Woz help me. Wright: yeah, my HAL ping reply was about 365 secs. Gardner: weird ;) Gardner - any good? Hey, Woz had nothing to do with Macintosh <_reason> ping tomm > Mark: Ick! Pray to Jobs It's... not bad. I guess I haven't made myself clear enough. I wasn't concerned about the law. Or the practical threat to me that exists if I don't shoot him. I can measure that and weigh it adequately. The only thing I was asking about was the morality of killing him, if I didn't *have to*. ("Have to" meaning in self defense). <_reason> hmmm. pings aren't returning A person breaks into your house. You know nothing about him, what his nitentions are, what his future actions will be. It is reasonable to assume in any case (but particularly, as in your example, if he cuts your phone lines) that he is a very real threat to your life. In any engagement in which both parties were aware of the other, you have no way of knowing what the outcome would be. In what way could it possibly be immoral to harm this person? * _reason must be way out of synch tonight _reason: not on this channel ;) JonA: sounds killer to me. Well, looks like the conversation is breaking down...I'll see you all some other time. Jon: I might harm him. I said so when I started. I wasn't sure about killing him. I don't think I would, unless I had stronger reason to believe that he was planning to kill me. Subetai: Aren't you splitting hairs? Are you asking if you should shoot to wound, instead of just trying to stop him in any way necessary? It's actually... kinda cool. ::gasp:: night Tom bye If you have the man hogtied on your floor and stripped of any and all findable weapons and weapon hiding-places, with a bit in his mouth so he can't bite you, then and only then can you know he is _no_ danger to you any longer. Unless he's dead. but, geez, guys, haven't you had so called friends lift things from your house? do you shoot them? this guy hasn't made a real threat on your life (yes, legally, but he's not holding a gun to your head, he's not even coming to the bedroom yet...i say it's immoral to shoot him right off like that) masdelaine, I think that's changing the example a bit -s greetings mr jon madelaine: do friends break in and cut your phone lines? madelaine: What do you want, a signed deposition that he does not intend to harm you? You want to turn on the light, see if he has a weapon, and then ask him politely if that's the case? Hi Madelaine * RexMundi pats HAL nicely. Better! Session Close: Sat Jan 27 00:37:22 1996 ---END LOG---