Posted on 12/01/2002 3:07:05 PM PST by Sir Gawain
|
Those people who are most opposed to freedom are often those who are most obsessed with endlessly discussing borderline cases. In their lame attempts to "prove" that liberty and individual rights are impractical or impossible, they harp on rare occurrences or ambiguous situations and then leap the chasm of qualifications or uncertainty you might offer and proclaim, "Aha! See! Your vaunted moral code can't deal with the real world!" (And, yes, the use of both "individual" and "rights" is redundant...but necessarily so in today's corrupt intellectual and political culture.) These folks are so enamored of statism and collectivism — or so fearful of freedom and personal responsibility (another technical redundancy) — that they cling desperately to the unusual and the unique so they can obstinately refuse to recognize the obvious cases where liberty should exist. Ayn Rand dealt with some aspects of this curious mental deficiency of fixating on the unlikely in her essay, "The Ethics of Emergencies," in The Virtue of Selfishness. As she points out there, the major (proper) goal of philosophy and morality is to provide people with a guideline for living their lives. But rather than accept and follow actually useful information, the Borderliners scramble to evade the truly practical so they can continue their eternal quest of "seeking" but never finding answers. For them, philosophy and morality are merely parlor games designed to occupy their minds and to distract from the messy details of living their lives. While Rand focused on the deleterious effects of altruism in deciding how to deal with emergencies, e.g., should you swim out to save a drowning stranger or race into a burning building to rescue someone you don't know, the same basic mindset is evident in many other areas. For example, when arguing the right to self-defense, pro-self-defense folks will point out that this natural right recognized and guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution is absolute, i.e., "shall not be infringed" by the State. The antigun nuts grin gleefully at this imminently reasonable and accurate statement and will always and immediately ask whether individuals should be "allowed" to own machine guns, bazookas, tanks, jet fighters, or nuclear weapons. Not for an instant will the statists accept either the fundamental fact of our right to defend our lives and property from violent criminals or the fact that a simple handgun — at the very least — is a proper tool for implementing that right. If you favor privately run and financed education, the collectivists will ask what will happen to those children whose parents refuse to send them to school...and ignore the fact that nearly all parents would do everything they could to see their children learn the basics of life, just as nearly all parents desire to feed and clothe and shelter their offspring. If you favor keeping your hard-earned money and not letting it be stolen and used for State-run welfare, the statists will ask what will happen to the crippled, er, disabled who can't work or the retarded or the mentally ill or the homeless...and ignore the reality of charity or family or personal responsibility for most of one's circumstances. If you favor open availability of all drugs to adults without restrictions, the statists will say that drug addiction will increase and more people will die...and ignore the fact that only a handful of drug or alcohol users become addicted and that there is a substantive difference between the use and the abuse of mind-altering substances. If you favor totally private and individual health insurance coverage, the collectivists will ask if you want those people who cannot afford insurance to die...and ignore the fact that many of those without insurance choose to do without and that the current high costs of insurance are due to the very kinds of interventions the collectivists are advocating. If you favor individuals saving for their own retirement, the statists will ask what you'll do with those who fail to save...and ignore the fact that most people survived fine before the introduction of Social Security and could do so again if their money wasn't seized before they even received their checks. If you favor parents deciding for themselves whether their children should wear helmets or use seat belts, the collectivists will say that we can't risk the life of a single child...and ignore the fact that very few children die simply because they were or were not wearing seat belts in cars or planes, and that mandates may result in more danger to the youngsters in question. Constantly appealing to rare circumstances that happen infrequently and, if they do occur, affect only a miniscule percentage of people may serve to confuse the philosophically unsophisticated, but it accomplishes nothing morally useful. The anti-freedom zealots would rather place restrictions on everyone because of what might — or might not — happen to or be done by a tiny fraction of people. Focus on the thousands who are murdered by handguns and call for licensing, registration, or prohibition...and ignore the millions whose lives are saved by showing or using firearms. Focus on the relatively rare instances of improper use of chemicals and ban such useful and safe compounds as DDT and freon and common insecticides...and ignore the millions saved from malaria and the billions who benefit from plastics, household chemicals, and other man-made products. Focus on the scattered instances of ill-considered clear cutting and sequester more millions of acres in national forests and parks...and ignore the radical increases in trees resulting from privately owned forests harvested by private companies. Focus on unsightly roadside trash littered by a few inconsiderate drivers and mandate recycling and bottle deposits...and ignore the responsible majority who must deal with the unprofitable burdens of the eco-fascists. Focus on the isolated incidents of school shootings and implement inane "zero tolerance" policies and declare schools "gun-free" zones...and ignore the countless millions of students who are free of violence and would benefit if teachers and others carried weapons at school. The Borderliners believe the scarce, the seldom, the sporadic, the scattered are the essence of existence. Statistical flukes must direct and dictate all of our actions no matter how counterproductive or destructive such a strategy might be. I can imagine these people confronted with a simple gedanken experiment. Ask them if it would be possible to determine whether a person were in Iowa or Illinois. They would furrow their brows in apparent thought then brighten when they realized that the Mississippi River formed the boundary between these two Midwestern states. They would nod sagely and say, "If you were sitting in a boat in the middle of the river, you would be unable to tell if you were in Iowa or Illinois. It is impossible to establish a constant line upon the top of the water to demarcate one state's territory from the other's. Even if you had a GPS reader, the margin of error inherent in the measurement would render it futile to declare with certainty that you were either in Iowa or Illinois." It would never occur to these self-delusional people that if you stood on the western shore of the Mississippi River, you would definitely be in Iowa; if on the eastern shore, Illinois. Nor would it penetrate their befogged awareness that in certain places there are solid bridges spanning the river from one state to the other; that it would be possible — there at least — to measure and draw a line across the roadbed to establish a line where you could straddle the border with precision. It is this kind of mind-boggling obtuseness that the Borderliners bring to discussions of freedom and morality and politics. If in the future you should ever find yourself confronted with such self-defeating attitudes, I suggest you tell your opponent that he can take a flying leap from that bridge that he finds so impossible to imagine. You both would be better off if he did: you, because you would be freed of his flummery, and he because a dunk in cold water might actually convince him as he swims for one shore or the other that the world is not composed solely of fuzzy borderlines.
See Russ Madden's articles, short stories, novel excerpts, and items of interest to Objectivists, libertarians, and sci-fi fans at http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/. |
Thanks for the post.
L
I've ranted about this sort of thing in other places, to which I will refer you all for an extended disquisition.
For those without the patience to read the above-linked essay: Broadly speaking, and without reference to "hard" or borderline cases, the central tenet of libertarianism, ethical individualism, is a good and constructive principle. But like all other theoretical models, it is inherently partial. That is, outside a certain zone of human conduct, it fails to apply, and if forced, will yield negative consequences.
Conceding that such a zone exists is the first obligation of the theorist in any sphere. His second obligation is to find its borders and try to understand them -- not to strain his model all out of shape and sense to force it in where it does not belong.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
The Autonomist's Notebook - Slavery
Hank
If you want to grapple with some really tough cases, David Friedman presents a few in The Machinery Of Freedom. One of my favorites runs like this:
A madman is rampaging through a crowd, taking lives right and left. No one in the crowd is armed, whereas the madman is, heavily. However, there's a loaded rifle in plain sight -- on the front porch of an old curmudgeon whose made it known that he is unwilling for anyone to come onto his property for any reason.
You're a crack shot. Given that rifle, you could drop the madman where he stands. But according to strict property rights theory, you'd be committing a trespass to touch the rifle. What do you do?
Any sane man would blow a razzberry at the property-rights issue and do what obviously needs to be done, secure in the knowledge that no jury in the world would convict him for his trespass. Property-rights purists, for whom nothing justifies an invasion of others' property, would be paralyzed.
As Friedman points out in his study of this case, there are no "trick" answers, for the conditions can always be straitened to foreclose any choices but violating the curmudgeon's property rights or allowing the loss of innocent lives.
Other important boundary-problem issues exist in dealing with children, madmen, abortion, border control, foreign policy and military affairs.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
You're a crack shot. Given that rifle, you could drop the madman where he stands. But according to strict property rights theory, you'd be committing a trespass to touch the rifle. What do you do?
Yes, this is the kind of problem we all run into every day, and we need hundreds of laws to make sure every possible situation such as this is covered, and we might as well cover all the situations that probably will not happen at all, as well.
What is the possible point of this most unlikely situation as a test of ethics?
There is a subtle lie built into almost all of these "hypothetical" situations, and this one is an excellent example.
This phrase contains the lie, "violating the curmudgeon's property rights or allowing the loss of innocent lives," which sets a known fact, that taking the curmudgeon's rifle is stealing (violating property rights) in opposition to an unknown (allowing the loss of innocent lives). It cannot be known that the madman will take any more lives, and it is just as likely the curmudgion will take the life of the one attempting to steal his rifle.
Notice also the subtle collectivist ethic that is smuggled in by the words, "allowing the loss of innocent lives," as though anyone were born with a moral obligation to prevent the loss of any innocent life besides one's own.
All these so-called border-line cases are nothing but socialism on the sly.
Hank
There is another flaw in the reasoning of your story. If the man were truly sane he would definitely not be secure in the knowledge that he would not be convicted. A sane man would do what his conscience dictated knowing full well that he might be convicted of theft and trespass or even shot for attempting it. He would do what he felt was right in full awareness of the possible consequences of his actions with a willingness to accept them.
It is yet another subtle introduction of delusional 'borderline' thinking that suggests that doing what you think is the greater good will excuse you for committing in the process lesser injuries to your fellow man because you will have popular support. That is also a collectivist point of view. An ethic that is based on the expectation of reward through consensus.
The individualist does not depend on salvation or forgiveness delivered by the goodness and fairness of his fellow man when weighing right and wrong. He does what he feels is right which will only naturally be best for everyone, himself included, as long as he considers himself no more or less important than anyone else. He knows that it is possible that no one else will agree.
The individualist knows his decision is his own and the consequences of his actions are his own to bear whether they are just and balanced or not. The sane man knows that only his own actions are under his control and expects nothing else.
Hope is another matter. We can always hope that others will treat us fairly.
1. Clear reason, in this case yours.
2. A sane man, a very rare being indeed.
3. "We can always hope that others will treat us fairly,"
which hope, if fulfilled, will almost certainly be accidental. Any society dominated by irrationality, and most are, will despise the rational man the moment they truly understand him.
I never expect to be treated "fairly." I am never dissappointed.
Hank
From Hank:
Yes, this is the kind of problem we all run into every day, and we need hundreds of laws to make sure every possible situation such as this is covered, and we might as well cover all the situations that probably will not happen at all, as well.
I did not take that position. If you're attempting to claim that I did, you're being dishonest. If you're attempting to claim that your nightmare fantasy would be the logical culmination of even thinking about hard cases, you and I have nothing to say to one another.
It appears that you didn't consider that, in this and comparable hypothetical cases, the conditions can always be tightened and intensified to leave the protagonist no way out of the hard choice. The point of the problem is that in such a case, adhering strictly to the precept of ethical individualism (in this case, in its property rights manifestation) produces a horrible result. This is the sort of problem the foes of liberty will present you with, and if your only response is the weak one you made above, you won't stand a chance against them.
One of the identifying traits of hard cases is that they are rare, which makes them sources of temptation to bend the law on the grounds that "that will never happen again" -- or, perhaps, never happen in the first place. But I suggest you elevate your sights a bit, Hank; cases just as bizarre as this are now being used to erode Constitutional protections. For example, arguments about computer-generated pornography that depicts juvenile-looking characters in sexual situations are being used to undermine free-speech protections, even though the whole point of the anti-child-porn laws is to prevent real children from being sexually exploited.
To argue against these borderline cases, one must learn not to react reflexively. One must learn to "keep breathing," agree with the proponent's assessment of the situation as he presents it -- without quarreling with his assumptions and conditions, which are his to control, not yours -- and then suggest that, while it does indeed seem necessary for the hypothetical protagonist to violate the curmudgeon's property rights, the likelihood that the curmudgeon's claim against the protagonist would be upheld by a jury is exceedingly slight. The critical thing is to prevent the "hard case" from acquiring precedental power, such that it could be used to undermine property rights in areas well back from the borderline.
Ralph Waldo Emerson put it extremely well in his essay "Compensation": "If you make the criminal code sanguinary, juries will fail to convict. If the law is too mild, private vengeance comes in." Mention a quote like that, harnessing Emerson's authority to your argument, and you might gain a few converts. Refuse to address the matter altogether, and you look intellectually cowardly.
As for "socialism on the sly," that's just epithet-hurling, not serious disputation, and I dismiss it.
From TigersEye:
There is another flaw in the reasoning of your story. If the man were truly sane he would definitely not be secure in the knowledge that he would not be convicted. A sane man would do what his conscience dictated knowing full well that he might be convicted of theft and trespass or even shot for attempting it. He would do what he felt was right in full awareness of the possible consequences of his actions with a willingness to accept them.
Well, since we're discussing hypotheticals here, remember that the conditions are not yours to control. I could make the postulates as tight as I pleased, as I mentioned above. I could pre-indemnify the protagonist against all practical negative consequences of his choice, leaving only the ethical dilemma. But let it pass. Even if we assume the likelihood of the worst possible practical consequences for the protagonist himself, as a moral actor cognizant of his power to affect the outcome of the scenario, he still has to face a choice between adhering to the letter of property rights theory and averting a public slaughter.
It is yet another subtle introduction of delusional 'borderline' thinking that suggests that doing what you think is the greater good will excuse you for committing in the process lesser injuries to your fellow man because you will have popular support. That is also a collectivist point of view. An ethic that is based on the expectation of reward through consensus.
Once again, I did not take that position, and to impute it to me is both intellectually and rhetorically dishonest. A sane protagonist would be secure in his assessment of his probable future; he would not do what he chose to do out of expectation of reward, or even exculpation, but rather from fellow-feeling for the madman's victims.
A recent case from Europe involved a man who committed a homicide to prevent the forcible "female circumcision" (a horrible paraphrase of genital mutilation) of his 12-year-old daughter. Witnesses for the prosecution claimed that the girl had consented to the operation. The father was tried and convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to six years in prison, even though he had wielded deadly force only to prevent the commission of a felony. He expressed no regret for what he'd done, and said at his sentencing that if the situation were to recur, he'd gladly do it again.
This is my idea of a sane man. He didn't stop to agonize over the "right to life" of someone who was determined to inflict an irreparable harm on a child. He didn't ponder whether his daughter might really have consented to the act, and whether he had a right to override her decision. He acted on his guardianship, his convictions and his best knowledge. An American jury would almost certainly have acquitted him -- without establishing as a precedent that murder is okay under the law.
The point of all this is that one must exhibit appropriate humility in political argument. Ethical individualism and its corollaries are very good things, an entirely proper basis for written law, but they don't cover all conceivable cases (including a few which actually have occurred and will occur again), and we ought to be frank about it. with regard to Friedman's problem as I presented it, we could say: Juries and judicial and prosecutorial discretion are supposed to be counterweights to the law's inability to cover all cases. Their failings arise from allowing them to become precedental, overthrowing the law rather than trusting to the judgment of future juries, judges and prosecutors to handle future hard cases.
The late Don LaVoie liked to say that persuasion is like sex; there has to be some give and take. It isn't war, where the object is to destroy your enemy. This applies with particular force to the promotion of our idea, which, as appealing as it is to us, will inevitably elicit resistance from others to whom it appears ominous or outrightly threatening -- and some of that resistance will take the form of "hard cases."
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
I've noticed that.
This is the sort of problem the foes of liberty will present you with, and if your only response is the weak one you made above, you won't stand a chance against them.
Well maybe these insipid borderline arguments are a problem to your liberty, but they are no problem to mine. So long as these are the kinds of arguments they are presenting, they are powerless against the truth. Pretending that these are actually, "problems," only encourages these inanities.
Refuse to address the matter altogether, and you look intellectually cowardly.
I never argue with children. Those who care how they look in other's eyes are cowards.
As for: I did not take that position. If you're attempting to claim that I did, you're being dishonest, I'm tempted to say, "so sue me." This is only a forum, for crying-out-loud.
It is my opinion that your emphasis on legitimizing borderline arguments in pursuit of the truth has the effect of encouraging the proliferation of laws to "protect against every possible danger or doubt," whether you are aware of it or not. People frequently say things while oblivious to their implied meaning and unintended consequences. I was not "accusing" you of anything, except, possibly, being oblivious.
Hank
The "halo effect" has a greater influence on the progress of ideas than you care to admit. Put another way, it is very important, perhaps critical, to concern yourself with how you look to those before whom you argue your case. To be unconcerned -- worse, to parade your unconcern -- with others' assessments of you will tar the ideas you propound with every pejorative from "hard-hearted" to "monstrous."
Calling others names is playground caliber. Any five-year-old can do it. It takes a man to take one's opponents in debate seriously, to admit that he doesn't have all the answers, and to admit that he might be wrong.
With that, I believe I have "said my piece."
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
I think you are a little thin-skinned. I did not intend to hurt you. I thought I was dealing with an adult that could take a little adult ribbing, for goodness sakes. I'll not "hurl any more epithets," as you call my partial quote of something you, yourself, said and the suggestion you may have been, "oblivious," to one way your words could be interpreted. If those were epithets, there really is not much one can say to you that isn't.
The "halo effect" has a greater influence on the progress of ideas than you care to admit. Put another way, it is very important, perhaps critical, to concern yourself with how you look to those before whom you argue your case. To be unconcerned -- worse, to parade your unconcern -- with others' assessments of you will tar the ideas you propound with every pejorative from "hard-hearted" to "monstrous."
In general, I couldn't care less what "effect" my words have on anyone, or how I look to them, or what labels they wish to apply to me or my words. I was not put on this world to convince those bent on destroying their own lives that they shouldn't.
I speak only to those who truly want to be free. I do not need to convince them by looking a certain way, or appearing to be humble. They don't want humble, they want the truth. The rest can be damned.
If they think I am hard-hearted and monstrous, they are correct. Toward most of the superstitious collectivist thugs and moochers that make up the world that is exactly what I am. I am also ruthless, unsympathetic, entirely selfish, and more than a little vain. But, I am free, and they can be too. It is a matter of choice, not convincing the world your ideas are correct. You don't need to convince the rest of the world the Cool-aid is laced with cyanide to refuse to drink it yourself.
Calling others names is playground caliber. Any five-year-old can do it. It takes a man to take one's opponents in debate seriously, to admit that he doesn't have all the answers, and to admit that he might be wrong.
I might be wrong. Until I see evidence to that, however, I shall continue hold the principles my best reason convinces me are true. I hope you do the same.
Your arguements are often interesting and thought provoking. I enjoy them even when I greatly disagree with them. I hope you know my disagreements are not personal. If not, you can always just ignore me.
Love,
Hank
ROTFLOL You really got a chuckle out of me. I think fairness does happen every now and then. Just to keep us guessing. Thank you for your supportive comments.
Any society dominated by irrationality, and most are, will despise the rational man the moment they truly understand him.
That is quite true. And on that rests my point that a truly sane man has no expectation of anything else. It is not insane to hope for fairness but when you expect it your mind has just left the planet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.