RoR: Forum

I haven't voted, but (because) this is kind of a trick question.

There are 3 concepts which need further qualification:

1) strict
2) severe
3) objective

Strict is fine if it only means fully enforced. Severe can be a problem if punishments no longer fit the crime, but exceed the nature of the crime. Objective can have 2 meanings:

A) the same for all (everyone equally under the law)
B) law that is, objectively, good for all of a society

There's nothing inherently wrong with strict and objective law (in the "A" sense), though severe law -- the kind justified by utilitarian reasoning -- is tyrannical. And even law that is objective in the "B" sense can be bad if coupled with severity.

Until these 3 concepts are clarified, I will not answer this poll.

Ed

Post 1

Friday, January 1, 2010 - 9:14am

Ed, what question are you suggesting is a trick? Could you quote it, please?

Post 2

Friday, January 1, 2010 - 10:07am

Does it mean ye can shoot the kid if he's caught in the act of stealing yer porch plant?

Post 3

Friday, January 1, 2010 - 1:05pm

Ted,

Ed, what question are you suggesting is a trick? Could you quote it, please?

Sure, I will have to look through my notes ... oh ... oh yes ... here is that question ... right here. Let me have a look at it now. Yep, it's the right one. Okay Ted, I am now in possession of the problematic question. I will quote it for you so that we both can be on the same page. Here is how it reads:

Is strict and severe objective law ever tyrannical?

Post 4

Friday, January 1, 2010 - 2:50pm

Ed, what you have just quoted is the heading of this thread, that is, "a name for the poll" as you can see stated here on the poll submission page, which is of a limited number of characters, and not "the actual question."

Do you know what "the actual question" of this poll is? (Assuming you have not voted, it will be in bold. For those who have voted it will be in italics.)

Would you be so kind as to please quote "the actual question"?

Post 5

Friday, January 1, 2010 - 5:43pm

As far as I know, "objective" has only one meaning within the context of the poll. Therefore, I voted "True." "Objective" is the only word that matters in the poll question. An objective government would be strict, severe, and fair in administering justice.

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

6.	intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

7.	being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).

8.	of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Having actual existence or reality.
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair¹.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Post 6

Friday, January 1, 2010 - 5:47pm

Does it mean ye can shoot the kid if he's caught in the act of stealing yer porch plant?

Could an objective individual, or government view this as just?

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 1/01, 5:48pm)

Post 7

Friday, January 1, 2010 - 6:35pm

Ted,

Looking at the expanded part:

********
No matter how severe the government, no matter how strict the law, if its edicts are objective, a state is not a tyranny.
********

... I'd want to know what a severe government looks like. What does that mean? What would its opposite look like?

In the spirit of what Robert had asked, does that mean, for instance, that if you are a tyrant who happens to hate jay-walkers -- that you can imprison them for life (and not have tyranny)?

The tyrant above would treat everyone the same (objectively), he would not play favors with his cousins or friends or even his own kids -- but he, subjectively, is the source of the severity of punishment for the mild and victimless crime of crossing the street in the wrong way.

Do you see my consternation (where both a sense of objectivity and a form of tyranny can co-exist)?

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/01, 6:36pm)

Post 8

Friday, January 1, 2010 - 7:09pm

That's not the "expanded part." There is no "expanded part," Ed. That's what the RoR website calls "the actual question."

I am not quite sure how you got to the discussion thread without first seeing the actual question on the front page. (Surely you don't check out what others have said first, before you vote?) Had the actual question been pasted into the name of the poll field, which accommodates only 60 characters, it would have become "True or False? No matter how severe the government, no matter. . . . " Not a very helpful title for future readers of the thread, is it?

In any case, the question you have actually refused to answer is this:

True or False?
No matter how severe the government,
no matter how strict the law,
if its edicts are objective,
a state is not a tyranny.

Your three objections from your first post are beside the point. We have (1) strict law, (2) severe government and (3) objective edicts.

(1) You seem to be of the opinion that strict law is okay.

(2) The question speaks of severe government. My on-line dictionary gives the options for severe as (1) 'great,' 'intense' or 'demanding,' (2) 'strict' or 'harsh,' and (3) 'very plain in style.' Calvert Watkins gives the meaning as 'tough,' 'steadfast' or 'stern.' You can choose for yourself from the context which of those meanings makes sense.

(3) And there is no speech in the question of "objectively good" edicts, but simply of objective edicts.

I think you can answer the question.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/01, 7:24pm)

Post 9

Friday, January 1, 2010 - 8:37pm

The question is mostly true and the statement is mostly false. Justice taught is justice served. The word tryannical has more often than not been used to define anyone who opposes ones view ,yet to have ones view survive one has to be tyrannical oneself. thefreedictionary.com has a good description of tryannical , who would not admit to being tyrannical about ones personal hard earned property?
You catch that kid stealing your porch plant you take his shirt in trade. You call the police they will tell you to take your plant inside. One way to take his shirt would be to grab picture of him and take it to the neighbor hood watch. Or invite him to a meeting.

Post 10

Friday, January 1, 2010 - 8:39pm

Poll is candy coated and too sweet to answer. LOL

Post 11

Friday, January 1, 2010 - 9:13pm

(3) And there is no speech in the question of "objectively good" edicts, but simply of objective edicts.

If there's a difference, I'm all ears.

Post 12

Friday, January 1, 2010 - 9:19pm

Objectivism and "objective" are not the same. A person can objectively infer an opinion from a set of facts using an altruistic principle. E.g., "More individuals will have health care under a single payer system than under the free market." That is an opinion, probably true, inferred objectively from facts, but clearly smuggling in altruistic assumptions as to the worth of that state of affairs.

That poll should be marked 'false'. "Severe" and "strict" are straw-men. A state is a tyranny if it is more of rights violator than a rights protector. It is the state's relation to individual rights that is the determinate factor - not "objective edicts."

"Legal objectivity, in all its manifold aspects, is what marks the divide between the rule of law and the rule of man." Matthew Kramer in "Objectivity and the Rule of Law."

The Rule of Law is an important ingredient but not the last nor the most important one.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 1/01, 9:20pm)

Post 13

Friday, January 1, 2010 - 9:49pm

But there's also a difference between an objective statement - that under universal health care everyone will have a health ID card - and an Objective law establishing universal health care.

Steve, can you provide an example of an objective socialized housing law? I think that's rather difficult. For example, let's look at a housing law that says all people without housing shall be eligible for state housing at public expense. As soon as I have gotten state housing, how can I logically say I deserve to keep it, since I am no longer homeless? You end up getting a class of people who are endlessly ntitled to housing because they are entitled to housing.

Post 14

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 12:15am

Ted, you need to tell me what you mean by an objective law.

Post 15

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 7:07am

Steve,

A person can objectively infer an opinion from a set of facts using an altruistic principle.

No altruistic principles are objective. You're saying that an altruistic principle is (or can be) objective, rather than subjective. I disagree. By any objective definition, altruism is inherently subjective. Objective doesn't mean considering some facts. To be objective is to consider all facts.

I understand that "objective" isn't "Objectivism," but to be objective doesn't mean being subjective.

Objective law considers all facts surrounding an actual, or potential action.

Post 16

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 7:37am

I'd have to agree with Steve. Simply 'being objective' can be considered a process or means of processing data, and not have any actual bearing on Objectivist principles.

As Ed stated, I think further qualification of what is being conceptualized in the poll is important to any decision. The deliberate choice of extreme words and phrases in the poll - "no matter how severe" and "no matter how strict" places emphasis on the degree of severity and strictness, suggesting at least the poster may have been looking to make their own specific point.

On almost any non-Objectivist board, I would suspect this question to be from someone baiting Objectivists, and hoping for 'yes' answers, in order to mount an anti-Objectivist argument.

jt

Post 17

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 9:13am

And why not the same here?

Post 18

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 9:23am

Actually, Steve, what needs a definition is the word law. I think you have to start with the idea of one's rights to one's life and property, and the idea that a violation of those rights is a crime (violence against a person) or a tort (damage against property). Laws are the rules by which the government identifies what crimes and a torts are, mandates how the state will identify criminals, and judge the existence of torts, and how it will punish criminals and redress damages. A law is not just something passed by a legislature. Things like legislative acts establishing socialized medicine are not properly laws at all. One doesn't commit the crime of private medicine. Such laws treat non-crimes as crimes and non-criminals as criminals.

As for asking me to explain what objective law is, re-read this thread. I am also waiting for Ed to read that thread.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/02, 10:04am)

Post 19

Saturday, January 2, 2010 - 10:04am