[Joynewyeary]

Suppose some person or people ("Impotent Evil") want some particular person or organization ("the Target") to be harmed. Suppose Impotent Evil would attack the Target (in a way that violates the law) if Impotent Evil had the means, but Impotent Evil lacks the means.

There is a person we will call "Enabler".

Enabler's intent: for the Target (the same Target that is hated by Impotent Evil) to be harmed.

Enabler's first action: look for and find Impotent Evil and set up a channel of communication with Impotent Evil.

Enabler's second action: provide Impotent Evil with the means. The means might be something as intangible as information (for example, "Salman Rushdie is in such and such a location right now").

Suppose Impotent Evil (using what Enabler provided) attacks the Target (in a way that violates the law) and injures the Target.

Question: in a legal system based on Objectivist principles, would Enabler have violated any laws?

This post has been edited by Joynewyeary: 01 June 2005 - 04:20 PM

[acapier]

Quote

Question: in a legal system based on Objectivist principles, would Enabler have violated any laws?

Yes (aiding and abetting) because Enabler intended the information to be used for evil purposes. Even if Enabler's intent couldn't be proven in court, and he/her were acquitted, the fact remains that s/he violated the protected rights of an individual.

[Joynewyeary]

Note what was not specified:

You were not told that Enabler reveals his or her own attitude towards the Target to Impotent Evil.

You were not told that Enabler advises or recommends that the means be used.

You were not told that Impotent Evil knows that Enabler is the source of the means.

The means are referred to as "the means" for the purpose of this discussion. However, they are in fact nothing but whatever it is that they actually are. Enabler expects Impotent Evil to interpret them as the means to a particular end, but Enabler doesn't provide Impotent Evil with that interpretation.

[Joynewyeary]

acapier, on Jun 1 2005, 08:33 PM, said:

Yes (aiding and abetting) because Enabler intended the information to be used for evil purposes. 

What does the term "aiding and abetting" have to do with Objectivism?

[acapier]

Quote

You were not told that Enabler reveals his or her own attitude towards the Target to Impotent Evil.

You were not told that Enabler advises or recommends that the means be used.

You were not told that Impotent Evil knows that Enabler is the source of the means.

That's all inconsequential. The fact of the matter is that Enabler knows that any information given to Impotent Evil would be used to harm Target.

Quote

What does the term "aiding and abetting" have to do with Objectivism?

I was indentifying the crime involved. Aiding, abetting, conspiring... Enabler provided the means with the intent that it be used by Impotent Evil, regardless of Impotent Evil's knowledge of said intent or means.

[softwareNerd]

Joynewyeary, on Jun 1 2005, 06:40 PM, said:

What does the term "aiding and abetting" have to do with Objectivism?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to Objectivist Ethics, aiding and abetting (as in the example) is evil. According to Objectivist Politics, aiding and abetting (as in the example) above is a violation of the target's rights.

[DavidOdden]

Joynewyeary, on Jun 1 2005, 04:56 PM, said:

Suppose Impotent Evil (using what Enabler provided) attacks the Target (in a way that violates the law) and injures the Target.

Question: in a legal system based on Objectivist principles, would Enabler have violated any laws?

Yes, for the same reason that aiding in the commission of a violent felony is, even under our highly non-Objectivist system, also a crime. The act causes rights violation, and it was done knowingly: it isn't relevant whose finger is on the trigger. This is pretty much the definition of a crime under an objective legal system.

[BurgessLau]

Joynewyeary, on Jun 1 2005, 03:56 PM, said:

Suppose some person or people ("Impotent Evil") want some particular person or organization ("the Target") to be harmed.  Suppose Impotent Evil would attack the Target (in a way that violates the law) if Impotent Evil had the means, but Impotent Evil lacks the means.

There is a person we will call "Enabler".
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To help set the context, could you answer two questions?

1. Is this the most important unanswered question you have about the application of Objectivism to your life?

2. How has this situation arisen in your own life -- and, if it hasn't arisen in your own life, why do you care about it more than any other possible questions?

Knowing the real-world origins of this issue might help both concretize it and explain it.

[Joynewyeary]

acapier, on Jun 1 2005, 09:25 PM, said:

Enabler knows that any information given to Impotent Evil would be used to harm Target.

You shouldn't have reached that conclusion, but the error is mine. "Look for Impotent Evil" is an action, but it probably didn't make sense for me to classify "find Impotent Evil" as an action. Enabler doesn't know that Enabler has actually found Impotent Evil.

Enabler finds a potential Impotent Evil. For example, Enabler might believe that there is only a one percent chance that a particular potential Impotent Evil is an actual Impotent Evil. However, Enabler may be satisfied with a one percent chance and may persist in seeking out new potential Impotent Evils and new opportunities to provide a potential Impotent Evil with some means.

This post has been edited by Joynewyeary: 02 June 2005 - 11:20 AM

[Joynewyeary]

softwareNerd, on Jun 1 2005, 10:19 PM, said:

According to Objectivist Politics, aiding and abetting (as in the example) above is a violation of the target's rights.

Can you support that statement?

[Joynewyeary]

BurgessLau, on Jun 2 2005, 11:29 AM, said:

1. Is this the most important unanswered question you have about the application of Objectivism to your life?

It's a question about Objectivism.

This might sound ridiculous to you, but I see three stages. First one acquires knowledge of a system of ideas. Second, one arrives at a judgment concerning the merits of the system. Third, one applies the system to one's life.

I'm at stage one.

BurgessLau, on Jun 2 2005, 11:29 AM, said:

2. How has this situation arisen in your own life -- and, if it hasn't arisen in your own life, why do you care about it more than any other possible questions?

Knowing the real-world origins of this issue might help both concretize it and explain it.

The thread "Wealthy Nemesis" is concrete. That seemed to be a problem for some people. This thread is about a general principle. Is that a problem for you?

[acapier]

Quote

You shouldn't have reached that conclusion, but the error is mine. "Look for Impotent Evil" is an action, but it probably didn't make sense for me to classify "find Impotent Evil" as an action. Enabler doesn't know that Enabler has actually found Impotent Evil.

I wasn't confused; if you "look for Impotent Evil", your intent is to find it. In order to find it you must know what you're looking for. Therefore, you will know when you've found it.

Quote

Enabler finds a potential Impotent Evil. For example, Enabler might believe that there is only a one percent chance that a particular potential Impotent Evil is an actual Impotent Evil. However, Enabler may be satisfied with a one percent chance and may persist in seeking out new potential Impotent Evils and new opportunities to provide a potential Impotent Evil with some means.

Still, it is all a matter of intent. Enabler wants to harm Target using whatever potential Impotent Evil s/he may find (no matter how likely the potential Impotent Evil); therefore, anything given to a potential Impotent Evil by Enabler that leads to the harm of Target holds Enabler partially at fault, and s/he should be punished.

[softwareNerd]

Joynewyeary asks: "Can you support [the] statement..." [that aiding and abetting is a violation of the target's rights (according to Objectivism)]?

Objectivism says that it is a crime to violate another person's rights.

When we speak of violating someone's rights, we imply two things:
1) That someone's rights are being violated (I assume that this is taking place in your example and that it is not the subject of debate in this thread).
2) That the violation is being caused by someone else?

When we speak of someone causing the violation of rights what does that mean? The person pulling the trigger is usually causing the death. However, if someone were being forced to pull the trigger, or being tricked by someone else into pulling the trigger, then the primary cause is someone else.

The get-away car driver has committed a crime just as the bank-robbers have. One might say that it is a different crime, but it is a crime nonetheless as it is an indispensable part of the causation leading up to a violation of rights.

Similarly, a terrorist's financiers (assuming they know what they're doing) are part of the causal contributors to the act of terror.

An objective legal code will expound on the meaning of "cause". For instance, Thomas Bowden gives a nice example in his lecture titled "Concretizing the Principles of Objective Law". There was a time when the "year and a day" rule applied. If you stabbed someone and damaged an internal organ such that they suffered for months and only died 13 months later, there was a time when you could not be convicted of murder (though would still be guilty of some type of assault and so on). Legally, (and objectively -- given the state of medical knowledge of the time) you would be judged not to have caused the death.

I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of criminal law in this area is already pretty objective.

Sometimes, a follow-on question from this is: why is the gun-manufacturer not part of the causation? But, let's not go there unless we can first agree that a person who aids a specific murderer to murder a specific person at a specific time and place is part of the causation.

[Eric Mathis]

softwareNerd, on Jun 2 2005, 05:07 PM, said:

The get-away car driver has committed a crime just as the bank-robbers have. One might say that it is a different crime, but it is a crime nonetheless as it is an indispensable part of the causation leading up to a violation of rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your analysis is sound. And, if we follow it, we would judge not only those who enact tax laws (politicians) as predators (criminals), but also anyone specifically associated with carrying it out: judges, IRS agents, and even those who receive stolen goods at IRS auctions.

[DavidOdden]

Eric Mathis, on Jun 2 2005, 03:23 PM, said:

we would judge not only those who enact tax laws (politicians) as predators (criminals), but also anyone specifically associated with carrying it out: judges, IRS agents, and even those who receive stolen goods at IRS auctions.

How does purchasing stolen goods cause the goods to be stolen?

[Joynewyeary]

softwareNerd, on Jun 2 2005, 05:07 PM, said:

[...] it is a crime nonetheless as it is an indispensable part of the causation leading up to a violation of rights.

Thank you. That is helpful. However, I do have a question.

For an action to be part of the causation of a rights violation seems more general than for an action to be part of the means. Consider the formation of intent. For example, suppose that the fuss about Rushdie had begun, not with a fatwa from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, but with the publication of an anti-Rushdie book. If the author had intended to motivate people to kill Rushdie and Rushdie's translators, then (since at least one of the translators has been killed) would the writing and publication of the anti-Rushdie book itself have been a crime?

softwareNerd, on Jun 2 2005, 05:07 PM, said:

But, let's not go there unless we can first agree that a person who aids a specific murderer to murder a specific person at a specific time and place is part of the causation.

Agreed, but that's the easiest case.

This post has been edited by Joynewyeary: 02 June 2005 - 06:43 PM

[softwareNerd]

Joynewyeary, on Jun 2 2005, 07:28 PM, said:

Agreed, but that's the easiest case.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you agree that the causation pretty clear in the "easy case"? Or, do you agree that we should talk of more complicated cases until we resolve the easy one?

I'll assume (conveniently ), i.e., that you agree with the "easy case".

If I were to phrase the question, it would be something like this: in some cases, it is easy to see that someone was a direct part of the crime. What about someone who was an indirect participant?

For instance, I brought up the example of a gun-manufacturer. Eric mentioned a fence selling stolen goods. You mention an instigator. Eric brought up the yet more complicated example of judges or politicians in a corrupt system.

My layman's view on the specific examples would be:
1) Gun company: (typically) no more guilty than the company that made the getaway car.
2) Fence: Guilty of knowingly fencing, not of aiding in a specific crime. (Proving it is a different matter entirely).
3) Kant (or your anti-Rushdie author): Morally responsible, but not legally. As I see it, Kant contributed to Hitler's moral delinquency, and then Hitler decided to act in a way that was legally culpable. It's like the difference between thought and action. (There are other cases -- the common example is someone shouting fire in a theatre, causing a stampede -- where the context of speech is such that a reasonable man can be expected to act upon it, and criminal culpability may thus arise.)
4) Politicians and judges in a mixed-economy. I will not make a general statement on this one. I would have to know more about each specific case. I think the thread titled 'Law Enforcement' addresses that subset of examples better.

As someone who hasn't delved into law, I can do little except address these on a case-by-case basis. As I said previously, I assume that this topic has been studied and codified pretty objectively into criminal law. The best place to start would be a law-text. I assume one would find that the key set of factors that must be present before a person can be said to be "aiding and abetting" in a crime have been studied and documented pretty well.

[DavidOdden]

Joynewyeary, on Jun 2 2005, 07:28 PM, said:

For example, suppose that the fuss about Rushdie had begun, not with a fatwa from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, but with the publication of an anti-Rushdie book.  If the author had intended to motivate people to kill Rushdie and Rushdie's translators, then (since at least one of the translators has been killed) would the writing and publication of the anti-Rushdie book itself have been a crime?

Unknown intentions aren't relevant: what would be relevant would be whether the book does advocate killing Rushdie. But even then, we would have to look at the actual statements made in the book. If some Islamo-fanatic were to say "Rushdie is a kafir lying pig dog son of two whores who defiles The Prophet, pbuh", that cannot objectively be called "causing the death". This may be objectionable, but it is not a crime. People have free will, and even if you criticize a person and reveal their cano-porcine ancestry, that does not compel them to chose murder as their way of life. The crucial distinction between speaking provocatively about a person and actively aiding in the comission of a crime against them (for example by providing their address, phone number and security system access code) is that the later helps to make the crime possible. Were that information not published, there is no reason to believe the crime could be committed. With provocative speech, OTOH, no essential private information about Rushdie is revealed.

BTW I don't think the law is at all specific about what constitutes "aiding and abetting". The answer is, "you have aided and abetted the commission of a crime, if a reasonable man would conclude that you have". The act of "inciting" is right up there with "tending to monopolize" in terms of ill-definedness.

[JMeganSnow]

Joynewyeary, on Jun 2 2005, 02:49 PM, said:

It's a question about Objectivism.

This might sound ridiculous to you, but I see three stages.  First one acquires knowledge of a system of ideas.  Second, one arrives at a judgment concerning the merits of the system.  Third, one applies the system to one's life.

I'm at stage one.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You will not acquire knowledge of Objectivism by posing a series of bizarre theoretical situations unless you are VERY GOOD at forming abstractions entirely on your own. A system of ideas is a complex interlinkage of high level abstractions.

Tell me, can you see the general principles linking the answers you receive in the various question threads you have posed thus far? (The principle, in terms of legality, is the idea of Man's Rights) You have not demonstrated any significant ability to formulate complex abstractions; you deal with everything on a case-by-case basis. Ayn Rand, I believe, referred to this as a concrete-bound mentality. Everyone is at that stage at some point in their lives; the idea is to move beyond it and start thinking in principles.

The best way to gain knowledge about Objectivism is to read Ayn Rand's books. If you're still in stage one, this is the best way to get a "big picture" idea of what the abstractions are that we're dealing with here.

This forum is actually best for people who are in the third stage, to use your terminology. If you're in the first stage all you can really gain from these kinds of application questions is confusion, and all you could "gain" in the second stage is to substitute someone else's judgement for your own. I am actually somewhat glad that I didn't stumble into any Objectivist community until after I'd read and re-read most of Ayn Rand's books MANY times; I had enough of a starting place to be able to comprehend the essential stuff before I encountered the many erroneous or or incomplete interpretations of it. Now that I DO know something, the forum has helped me bash the errors out of my OWN interpretations.

The problem, also, is that you're starting in the middle. In order to understand why men should have rights in the first place, you need to start with the metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Politics is not the place to begin learning about Objectivism.

Objectivism actually has nothing to say about the precise content of the law, apart from "apply the principle of Man's Rights in accordance with reason" i.e. in accordance with your perception and knowledge of reality. So, when you ask these questions that's what you get: individuals using their reason to apply Man's Rights.

[Joynewyeary]

JMeganSnow, on Jun 3 2005, 05:15 PM, said:

If you're in the first stage all you can really gain from these kinds of application questions is confusion, [...]

I have seen a given question classified as "too advanced" for one course (so that it "would just confuse people") and "too elementary" for the next course in the series of courses. If everybody accepts that kind of classification, then the question never gets answered.

JMeganSnow, on Jun 3 2005, 05:15 PM, said:

[...] and all you could "gain" in the second stage is to substitute someone else's judgment for your own. 

Suppose you write a technical paper and submit it to a technical journal. Isn't it possible that, after the reviewers study your paper, they might provide you with information that could affect your judgment of the merits of your paper? Why should what may be a long process of judging merits be a process performed entirely alone?

JMeganSnow, on Jun 3 2005, 05:15 PM, said:

Objectivism actually has nothing to say about the precise content of the law, apart from "apply the principle of Man's Rights in accordance with reason" i.e. in accordance with your perception and knowledge of reality. 

Would you say my contributions to this thread focus on the precise content of the law?