Freedomain Radio

How does the inability of an uninformed observer to distinguish between the initiation of force and vigilantism affect the moral evaluation of the recovery of stolen property?

I think it is likely that vigilantism would be forbidden in a stateless society.

todofixthis:

By "retaliate", I mean revenge

I think we need to differentiate between "restitution/compensation" and "revenge/punishment".

Restitution should be the primary goal. Where restitution can't be made, then "compensation" should be the goal.

I don't see a case for "revenge" or "punishment" ... those are biblical constructs that have no place in a modern free society. (I say this because we all know that the most effective way to instill "proper" future behaviour in a child is to educate rather than to punish -- and the same would apply to criminals).

Since restitution is obviously not possible in cases of rape, murder or assault, the "compensation" path would be followed. First by the DRO immediately compensating the victim, then by the DRO extracting the compensation from the perpetrator -- either in cash or by way of some form of equivalent value of labour as an alternative. If the perpetrator was unwilling (or unable) to pay up or work it off, then he/she would be ostracised until a change of mind came about. I suspect that any decent DRO would also be educating the perpetrator on the way to avoid such consequences in the future and would probably assist in rehabilitation to mitigate the risk of the perpetrator re-offending against their policyholders.

As you might guess, I don't approve of vigilantism or lynch mobs as a means of seeking compensation for wrongs. That kind of Abrahamic "eye for an eye" mentality is the cause of self-perpetuating violence in the Middle East and multigenerational family feuding in Sicily.

Revenge is an illogical idea.
Like the poster above me, I believe that restitution/compensation is a logical goal.
Revenge, however, doesn't help either party involved.
It's a lose/lose decision.

I would like to now wether violence is acceptable against people who have used force (in the past). When someone has stolen property he would lose claims to property to compensate the victims. A boycott would also be possible. And the thief could work to pay off the debt so this boycott could end. But no violence would be needed.

But how then with murder and rape. Would violence be tolerated against these people? Could those people be locked up to defend society against these individuals. If you would allow this it would lead to some problems. Everybody is equal. So if a DRO can lock up a person so can I. Then I could lock somebody up in my basement because he commited a crime. 

meijer1973:

I would like to know whether violence is acceptable against people who have used force (in the past). When someone has stolen property he would lose claims to property to compensate the victims. A boycott would also be possible. And the thief could work to pay off the debt so this boycott could end. But no violence would be needed.

But how then with murder and rape. Would violence be tolerated against these people? Could those people be locked up to defend society against these individuals. If you would allow this it would lead to some problems. Everybody is equal. So if a DRO can lock up a person so can I. Then I could lock somebody up in my basement because he commited a crime. 

I'm curious to hear the logic of how locking someone into a prison for a fixed period actually solves any problem for society or provides any kind of restitution to a victim?

Let's take an example of a rapist.

First, the victim should be compensated for the pain and suffering of the rape and any physical damage caused -- the costs of counselling and medical attention -- plus liquidated damages for loss of liberty, loss of virginity, psychological trauma, etc. The perpetrator should be required to pay these total damages, or the victim's DRO who would in turn collect from the perpetrator's DRO (if he has one), if the perpetrator defaults.

But what useful purpose does an additional prison sentence serve?

Does it teach the rapist, in a more effective manner, not to rape than would counselling? I would suggest not. On the contrary, he is likely to be raped in prison and finish his sentence with even more anger to be vented on society (and possibly against the original victim who, in his mind now, "caused" him to be subjected to that violence -- ironic, and a never ending chain of events, isn't it?).

Does it help the victim in any way? I would suggest not, since the victim has already been "fairly" compensated for the violation and therefore should not be asking for more.

Does it protect "society" in any way? I would suggest not, since he could just as easily (and probably will!) rape someone else in the prison who is normally law-abiding and only there for a few days for non-payment of a parking fine or for smoking a scoob. In any event, the perpetrator will only be in prison for a finite time period then will be back on the streets in a more psychologically damaged condition than even before the initial rape.

Encouraging a perpetrator, through fair treatment and effective counselling, to mend his ways is about 100 times (no, I don't have statistics) more effective than tossing him into a prison cell for x years ... in my opinion. And if he learns some self esteem through working off his original damages bill within society, he will also be less likely to offend again. Certainly far less likely than if he had been thrown into the prison system.

More effective parenting in a free society will also see far fewer rapists and murderers anyway -- as we can already see in the non-US western world, where reductions in Abrahamic religions and less heavy-handed storm trooper policing have resulted in significantly lower violent crime rates (about 1/3rd) per capita than in the US. In Switzerland, where everybody is armed, the murder rate is 1/4 of that in the US and the rape rate is 1/6th of that in the US. Yet the US locks up around 8 times as many people per capita than the rest of the west! ... how's that working for them so far?

What do you think?

As many have said, you have to separate restitution from revenge, which the OP lumped together.

There are three separate things that can involve force, aside from flat out initiation thereof;

Retaliation/revenge, restitution, and self defence.

Only one of which actually REQUIRES force to be the method chosen by the actor.  Restitution can be accomplished with out force, but that does not mean force, and so can self defence, in as far as simply removing yourself from the threatening situation.

Self defence only requires force when the attacker prevents you from walking away, or pursues you and catches you, and the attempts to prevent you from leaving.  Self defence is only that which is necessary to stop the harm from being done to you.  If that can be accomplished without you using force, then that is what is best.  Whether or not that can be done is entirely up to the actions of the attacker.  It is up to them whether or not you are required to use force against them to maintain control of your own body.

Similarly, it could be argued about restitution, being about maintaining control of your property.  If you approach someone about restitution, you are attempting to maintain/regain control of your property, an extension of your control of your body, and if they try to use force to prevent you from, then I would argue that force can be used to regain your control.

Retaliation MUST involve force.  It is about doing the same harm to the perpetrator as was done to the victim.  There can be no voluntary option here.  The perpetrator cannot simply let you have your property back, or your body back.  The nature  of retaliation is entirely in the enacting of force by one against another.

At least this is how I see the difference between defence and retaliation.

If anyone has ever studied Judo, you might get a better understanding.  Spawning from Jujitsu, it is based largely around the idea of push and pull.  That is, if someone pushes you, you don't push back (retaliation,) you pull.  You step out of the way, using their momentum against them.  With the exception of in training, where in it is a wilful engagement of both parties, there is no need to initiate anything.  Rather, it is entirely about reacting to what the aggressor does, to the minimum required to prevent harm to yourself.  It is a truly beautiful thing in this regards.

That's not to say there are not things thought with regards to actually initiating something, if only for the sake of allowing one to train with another who is using the same principles.  Otherwise it would ust be two people standing next to each other, lol.  Also, there are submission holds taught, which can be justified in situations where the aggressor simply will not stop.  Restraining them, or moving out of the way of their attack/using their attack against them may not be enough to remove your self from their threat.

Aikido is a similar martial art, in which the focus is using the aggressor's force against them, rather than using your own force against them.  Though Aikido essentially needs to be mastered to have any practical application as self defence.  But when it is mastered, holey f***, watch out.

Any who, Sorry about the tangent, just some interesting thoughts.  For anyone interested in self defence, I cannot recommend Judo enough.  It may look aggressive in practice, and there certainly is aggression, but all voluntary, and also, only for the purpose of allowing for real world esque training experience.  Actually, that's another good thing about it, unlike many other martial arts, or at least many moves with martial arts, which cannot be practised with a partner at full force, do to potential injury, as my dad likes to say, practising how to NOT hit (in it's own, a good principle mind you, lol) Judo can be trained with full "force" thus allowing for proper training, without worrying about serious injury to either party.  Nice, due to the nature of the art being focused on simply stopping an aggressor, rather than causing injury.

I apologize for not being clear; I was trying to explicitly reference the actions of exacting revenge and administering punishment, but I only implicitly set aside idea of providing compensation or restitution to victims.

Put differently, what I want to focus on is the morality (or lack thereof) of using force against someone who did initiate force at one point, but has since stopped using said force.

Several posters have elaborated (and eloquently) about how such retaliation is unnecessary, and I certainly agree with your points.  However, I'm really looking for a slightly more formal explanation.

Several areas that I have explored:

• The essential difference between initiating force and self-defense is that the initiator seeks to either destroy or gain (at his victim's expense), while the defender seeks to preserve. The act of retaliating against a force-initiator in this context is an act committed with the intent to destroy the criminal's person or property (i.e., "values"), which suggests to me that it is immoral, especially if rights are inalienable.  But I'm not sure if it's a particularly strong argument, especially if one considers that the stolen property is at best, no longer legitimately owned and at worst, completely unowned (it's a little more cut-and-dry from this angle when it comes to crimes against persons/bodies rather than property).
  
  
• Self-defense is moral, since it is the sole means by which a rational being can defend his property against the use of physical force.  Since the use of physical force is neither a proper nor a normal human activity, one should use only enough force as is necessary to terminate the force being used against him.  For example, it would be inappropriate to kill a man who was purposely standing on your property but otherwise posing no threat to your person or property.  However, should the man draw a gun and attempt to harm you, the use of deadly force is both moral and justified.  I'm still working out a more formal explanation of this principle, so this one might be "on the right track", but I'm having some difficulty developing it further.
   
• If your property is stolen or destroyed, the end result from your standpoint is no more different than if, say, a tree fell on it and destroyed it.  In other words, regardless of whether your property was destroyed by a person or by natural phenomena, you are still deprived of that property just the same.  And if it was stolen, that's the thief's problem, and there will be consequences for him.  Certainly, there are non-violent actions that can be taken in both cases to prevent future losses (several of which are covered quite aptly by the other posters here), but in essence, my point is that there is no more justification for "going after" a thief than there would be for "going after" a fallen tree.
  
  
• Alternatively, perhaps I'm going about this backwards - trying to prove a negative, as it were.  Since there's no evidence (at least, none of which I am aware) that suggests that it is moral to engage in acts of revenge or retaliation, perhaps I can simply discard the notion, and let those who wish to assert its validity bear the burden of proof.
  
  
• Part of the problem I think stems from trying to wed the concepts of retaliation and justice, as if a crime that goes unpunished somehow represents a cost or loss to everyone else in society, or perhaps as if to suggest that one can use violence to educate people (I don't think I need to elaborate here on why that is a false idea!).

I see these all as "starting points", though.  My goal is to either work out a link between morality and retaliation - or be able to prove that such a link is invalid.

This represents half of my split with Objectivist politics* in favor of the stateless society, and this is the one problem that "gives me pause" when I discuss it with statists.

Thanks for your responses so far!  They have given me a number things to think about, and I look forward to reading your continued thoughts on this issue.

* (the other half revolves around the concept of intellectual property)

I still don't understand why this is a problem. If someone steals your property it is moral to recover that property. Elapsed time may be a practical concern but I don't see how it affects the morality of the situation.

Eric Starnes:

If someone steals your property it is moral to recover that property. Elapsed time may be a practical concern but I don't see how it affects the morality of the situation.

Can you elaborate on why it is moral to recover the property?  I'd be especially interested in why it would be moral to use force to recover the property if necessary.

Do you accept that humans have property and UPB as a framework for evaluating moral rules? If so we can see if recovering stolen property is good or evil. If you also accept that there are no unchosen positive obligations, a separate discussion if you do not, then we can eliminate good as an option for recovering stolen property. 

The rule it is evil to recover stolen property is more difficult, but I believe it can be shown to be internally inconsistent. If the thief uses force to prevent the recovery of property that he stole then he is both affirming and denying the validity of property. The universality principle would mean that if the thief can not use force to prevent the recovery of stolen property then no one can.

I am not sure that that argument is rock solid, but if it is then recovering property is neither good nor evil and therefore in the realm of aesthetics and permissible.

Edited to add: I should have said permissible in the previous post rather then moral to avoid confusion between good and moral.

An interesting (long) story that discusses (not the main theme, but it is covered) this is found at http://www.anarchism.net/steppes.htm

I would appreciate feedback on my previous post.

todofixthis:

Eric Starnes:

If someone steals your property it is moral to recover that property. Elapsed time may be a practical concern but I don't see how it affects the morality of the situation.

Can you elaborate on why it is moral to recover the property?  I'd be especially interested in why it would be moral to use force to recover the property if necessary.

Just homing in on this statement, so sorry if I am off base. It is okay, or not immoral (I quibble with the use of the word "moral"), to recover the property. The reason being that they stole the property, and it was yours, and it is still yours even after they steal it. You can decide to give up rights to your property, voluntarily, but no arbitrary passage of time or whatever makes it NOT your property without your consent. The very fact that it is your property that has been taken from you without your consent makes it stolen; see, if it's not your property anymore, how can it be acknowledged as stolen?

I appreciate your responses.  I have been extremely busy with work the last few days and have been unable to find the time to compose a proper reply.  I will be able to respond soon.