What counts as &#34;initiation of force&#34;?

Hey guys,

This is a really basic question, but I've never seen a clear answer to it, and by now I've read a fair amount about Objectivism.

My question is, what exactly counts as an "initiation of force", and why?

For example, suppose there's a guy, let's call him Wesley, who lies and says his child needs money for an operation, and so a lot of people give him money, and it turns out that he doesn't even have a child at all. In this case, it would definitely be okay to use force against Wesley to put him in jail to punish him for his crime. But did Wesley actually use force at all? He never punched anybody; he never used any weapons; he never did anything that would directly physically hurt somebody else's body. To me, it seems like Wesley has not used "force" at all. Doesn't force mean either physically hurting somebody, by punching or using weapons or something, or else at least threatening to physically hurt somebody? Wesley didn't do either of these things.

You could argue that Wesley uses force when you try to come and take back the money he stole from you. When you try to take your money back, he doesn't give it to you, which means that if you try to take it from him he will fight back and use force against you. Is this the moment that Wesley uses force?

Well, what if Wesley is a wimp, and he can't fight, and so if you ever catch up to him and demand your money back, he just gives it to you? What then? Obviously it would still be okay to use force against Wesley to put him in jail. But to me, it seems that if Wesley is behaving in this manner, even though he is a criminal, he is never using force against anybody. Not once does Wesley ever punch somebody, use a weapon against somebody, shove somebody, or threaten to punch, shove, or use a weapon against somebody. Wesley wouldn't physically harm a fly. I'd throw him in jail, but I still don't think he's used force against anybody.

So what's the answer to this question? I'm not sure if I agree that "you should never initiate the use of force", because I would be willing to initiate the use of force against Wesley.

Thanks,
Pan

Post 1

Monday, January 20, 2003 - 1:14am

Hi Pan,

To answer your question, we need to take a look at why the initiation of force is wrong. Force is wrong because there are two opposing ways of dealing with people; through reason or through "anti-reason," such as force, or in this case, fraud. As I understand it, fraud is considered a derivative of force because in both cases, you are depriving the victim the ability to use his reasoning mind. Fraud misrepresents facts, perverting the course of reason, as it were.

Both fraud and force acquire a value without the consent of the value�s owner. In the case of fraud, the owner may be consenting to offer the value, but they are consenting to something other than what the fraudster can or does provide. In this case, the donators voluntarily give money to help a sick child, but Wesley can/does not provide a sick child for the donators to benefit from helping. So, although fraud does not involve physical force, you can see that they are the same in principle. I guess, technically, the principle should be, "You should not initiate anti-reason against another."

All rather extemporaneous (love that word!), but I hope this helps.

G.

Post 2

Monday, January 20, 2003 - 10:39am

Thanks for your response Glenn.

I still don't really understand, though. To use force against somebody means to use physical violence or the threat of physical violence against somebody. Doesn't it? It still seems to me that fraud does not necessarily entail the use of force, even though fraud is a way of acquiring somebody else's property without their consent. So when I hear John Galt say, "you should never initiate the use of force", I think, well he's on to something here, but still I don't think that's exactly right.

I've heard people say that fraud is an "indirect" use of force. But why? Where is the force? Where is the physical violence? Where are the weapons?

Also, I don't think it's quite right to change the principle to "you must never initiate anti-reason against another." Because if you did, it might mean that if somebody initiated anti-reason, then it would be okay for the government to use force against them as punishment. But one of the main things the principle of NIOF does is to protect people who have engaged in anti-reason, so long as they have not initiated force. For example, believers in NIOF think that a person should be legally allowed to discriminate based on race, as long as they do it on their own private property. Well, discrimination based on race is certainly anti-reason. Should the discriminators be legally punished? According to NIOF, no; but according to NIOAR, they could be. Right? So I don't think that NIOAR is a suitable replacement for NIOF. (NIOAR = non-initiation of anti-reason.)

Maybe we should change the principle to "you should never initiate the use of force or fraud." Would that work?

Again, sorry if I'm slow to grasp this basic point!

Pan

Post 3

Monday, January 20, 2003 - 12:29pm

Pan,

I think you're getting too hung up on the force thing. Force is touted, I'm guessing, because it's the most common form of anti-reason. Fraud is just as bad as force because both seek to subvert or destroy the reasoning process. Reason is man's sole means of survival and knowledge and anything that seeks to defeat that (force, fraud, whatever) is necessarily wrong.

You're right, there is no physical force actually involved with an act of fraud, but don't get too focused on the concrete of force. If peeling a banana destroyed the reasoning process, then that would be wrong, too.

So once we've identified something as being objectively wrong, it's appropriate for the government codify a set of laws to punish transgressors with objective punishments. It's not practical to punish a fraudster with fraud, so the only just response is some kind of retaliatory force as punishment.

Discrimination wouldn�t be �anti-reason� as I would define it. You�re not seeking to do harm to another (you don�t owe them a job or your product) or deprive them of their property. By anti-reason I mean, any act initiated by one person that detrimentally affects the reasoning process of another. This covers force and fraud and peeling bananas if that were ever applicable.

G.

Post 4

Monday, January 20, 2003 - 12:50pm

"Maybe we should change the principle to "you should never initiate the use of force or fraud." Would that work?"

Um, you are missing something. That's what the principle already *says*. Force or fraud. I have no idea where you got your abridged version.

Post 5

Monday, January 20, 2003 - 2:26pm

Hi Pan,

You've raised a challenging and important point. Force and fraud are very different. When a criminal attacks a victim, the criminal initiates force. When a criminal commits fraud, the police initiate force to defend the victim's rights.

Although necessary and powerful in political theory, the "non-initiation of force or fraud" principle is an inelegant phrase that is problematic and not easily communicated to non-libertarians.

To identify if there is a complementary principle here, we need to ask: what exactly is the common feature of criminal force and fraud? Both violate individual rights. Both circumvent "discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement" (to quote from "The Nature of Government" in The Virtue of Selfishness).

Both evade the responsibility to seek and obtain consent when interacting with others.

The beauty of the concept of consent is that it has great explanatory power. Consent can be given and withdrawn. Contracts are designed to spell out exactly what the contracting parties are consenting to -- and what not. In the realm of sex, rape may be defined as non-consensual intercourse. Formerly unlawful sexual practises are now lawful in many countries because they are recognised as sexual acts between consenting adults. And many libertarians argue that dealing in drugs should be treated likewise as interaction between consenting adults. Finally, governments "are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Governed". Etc.

When it comes to issues such as emergencies, and to children, the incompetent, the unconscious and the absent, it is possible to define the depth of reasonable consent in each context, and therefore to map out the scope of lawful action and interaction.

Make no mistake, this doesn't mean it's okay to ditch Ayn Rand's analysis of force as the "antonym and negation of thought". The concept of consent simply identifies what it is that the "non-initiation of force" principle is designed to protect: the right to act freely on your own judgment, provided that you respect the equal rights of others to do likewise. Force is the opposite of reason; consent is an application of reason.

Consent and individual rights are complementary concepts. While individual rights are invoked against the abuse of power by government (and the initiation of force and fraud by criminals), consent can be invoked in favour of individual liberty. The principle here is this: an action that violates an individual's rights should be regarded as unlawful; and an interaction in which informed consent is freely given should be regarded as lawful.

In other words, consent should make an interaction legal. Or, "Ok is Ok".

See: www.consense.org.za

Post 6

Monday, January 20, 2003 - 4:56pm

Thanks for the responses, guys.

Francois, I'm glad that you at least agree with me that fraud is not the same thing as force. But I still think there's a problem here. Objectivists are always saying "you must never initiate the use of force against an innocent person." I think that statement is wrong. I think it would be okay to initiate the use of force against a fraudulent person like Wesley.

Am I worrying too much about details? To me this seems important enough to sort out carefully. In her essay "Philosophical Detection", Ayn Rand says, "You must not take a catch phrase--or any abstract statement--as if it were approximate. Take it literally." I agree with this approach personally.

In his famous speech, John Galt says, "So long as men desire to live together, no man may *initiate*--do you hear me? no man may *start*--the use of physical force against others."

Now, if I follow Ayn Rand's advice, and take John Galt literally, then it would not be okay to use force against Wesley, because Wesley--fraudulent as he is--has not used force against anybody. He's used fraud, but he hasn't used force.

Is this really John Galt saying something that isn't true? Is that even possible?? How is Objectivism going to win worldwide acceptance if one of its main catch phrases is wrong???

Pan

Post 7

Monday, January 20, 2003 - 5:00pm

Oh, I'm sorry, I need to make a correction in my previous post. In my first paragraph, addressed to Francois, where I said, "you must never initiate the use of force against an innocent person", what I meant to say was, "you must never initiate the use of force against anybody." I agree that "you must never initiate the use of force against an innocent person," but I don't agree that "you must never initiate the use of force against anybody."

Sorry for the mistake.

Pan

Post 8

Monday, January 20, 2003 - 5:41pm

Man, did you read my last post ? I already *said* that the saying is "force or fraud", not just force.

Your "Wesley" case would justify forcing him to restitute the money and so on, but not to use any amount of force against him. You are taking the complexity of a specific case, with specific context, as a denial of a larger principle. That doesn't make any sense.

Post 9

Monday, January 20, 2003 - 11:00pm

Thanks for the input, guys. I'm not trying to be a pain in the neck, but this is a subject that I've had some questions about for awhile.

One of the questions that I asked in this thread was, does fraud count as a use of force? The answer that I got was "no." Okay, that makes sense.

Another question I asked was, is it true that you should never initiate the use of force? The answer I got for that one was also no. What is true is that you should never initiate the use of force or fraud, and if you do commit fraud then it is okay for the government to initiate the use of force against you, even though you have not used force yourself.

Okay, those answers make sense.

Now, here is my remaining question. If it is not true that you should never initiate the use of force, then why do so many Objectivists, like Ayn Rand and John Galt, always say, "you should never initiate the use of force"?

Francois, you claim that the real saying is "you should never initiate the use of force or fraud." Well, I looked in The Ayn Rand Lexicon under "physical force," and I found the following statements from Ayn Rand. Keep in mind, I disagree with these statements, because I think it is okay to initiate the use of force against somebody who has committed fraud, even though the fraudulent person has not used force himself.

"The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may *initiate* the use of physical force against others." ("The Objectivist Ethics," Virtue of Selfishness)

"Men have the right to use physical force *only* in retaliation and *only* against those who initiate its use." ("The Objectivist Ethics," Virtue of Selfishness)

"The moral absolute should be: if and when, in any dispute, one side *initiates* the use of physical force, *that side is wrong*--and no consideration or discussion of the issues is necessary or appropriate." ("Brief Comments", The Objectivist, March 1969)

There are lots of other quotes like those three. I hear it from Ayn Rand, and I hear it from other Objectivists.

So my only remaining question is, why does Ayn Rand always say these quotes that aren't true? Ayn Rand would agree that it would be okay to use force against Wesley, but isn't it true that Wesley himself has never used force against anybody else? If so, then according to the third Rand quote, it would be wrong to initiate the use of force against him.

Again, I know that these are probably the kinds of questions that every new fan of Objectivism asks all the time, and I'm sorry to drag people into this if they're sick of discussing it again and again. But it seems interesting and important to me.

Pan

Post 10

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 12:41am

Pan,

I guess the final point to make is that the government would not be "initiating" force against Wesley in punishment. It would be retaliatory force against a force-derivative. Retaliatory force is the proper and just response to any initiation of force or its derivative, fraud. While fraud is not *actual* force, it *is* the same in principle: it ignores consent and thought and should be subject to appropriate justice.

The other advice I'd offer is not to treat Ayn Rand's quotes, particularly the Lexicon, as dogma. The quotes may well have been intended in a particular context, i.e. in reference to a concrete instance where the wrong was indeed actual force. The proper principle is as Francois identified; it's wrong to initiate force or fraud.

Finally, the NIOF principle is a concept within the realm of social ethics; quite deep within the Objectivist philosophy. Social ethics relies on more fundamental ideas, such as honesty, justice and reason. Perhaps thinking a little more about why dishonesty is wrong and why IOF is wrong, this wouldn�t be such a major issue?

G.

Post 11

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 1:12pm

    Though the question, and all responses, are old (2003), I regard this as a good question from relative newbies to O'ism. Many interpret the idea of 'force' as meaning ONLY physical force (strictly speaking, physical force attempts, re threats of using it; once a gun/knife is used to kill, well...); unfortunately, it seems that most libertarians (as well as the LP) also  interpret 'force' this way.
    I see the question, at bottom line, as asking "Can the term 'fraud' properly be considered as a part of 'force,' or must it always be added as a separate category re O'ism's principle of initiating it/them, for the full meaning to be clear?" --- Correct me if I'm wrong on that re-interpretation.

    A careful reading of Rand's writings show that she was primarily concerned with the idea of 'forcing a mind.' --- Forcing it to think ONLY what one wants it to, be it a belief X, or a value Y. Re a value, this usually would imply the worth of solving a problem (see Thompson and Galt,) but also can include the threat to values other than one's own life (see Galt's last private discussion with Dagny.) Overt threats are the most obvious ways to threateningly 'force' a mind, but not the only ways.
    There are also the covert ones that involve manipulation of another's mind. Think of there being a 'danger' of crossing a road where rockslides often occur...but you have no awareness that such occurs. The threat is there, though you're perception of it is not. Mind-manipulation (or it's potential necessity re possible questions that may or may not be brought up) is no different. Brain-washing (or hypnosis, drug-wise or not) is the most blatantly obvious association here. But mere lying is also applicable especially re con-artists, who often set up whole 'fake' environments to lie their way through, as well to immorally 'gain' what you have...in effect, without your rationally-based permission. And those last 3 words are really the upshot of the immorality of 'fraud.' One's rationally-oriented mind must be circumvented for fraud to occur, by 'forcing' it to perceive/conceive situations as true, though the manipulator knows them to be false.
    Re Wesley: right off the bat he lied, and to keep his 'ill-gotten' gains, he has to lie some more. He therewith uses 'force' but not physical...yet anyway.
    Further, one can conceive of lying as never even starting off the problem. --- Let's talk about Wilma. Wilma finds an expensive ring left in her home by a visiting friend, Mary, who may, or may not, even know she lost it...yet.
    Now we're talking about moral obligations re trust and respect to friends re having their permission to use what's theirs. Wilma used no 'force' as explicated above...yet. But, she now controls a situation akin to my analogy above re the rockslide. If she does not let Mary know that Wilma has it, she has to set up a 'fake/pretend' situation that Mary is not even aware that Mary's in, by pretending that Wilma has no awareness of the ring.
    Wilma is using mind-manipulating 'fraud' forcing Mary to trust Wilma's acting-lies, though Wilma may never be involved in a discussion with Mary on the subject. If Wilma is prepared to actually verbally-lie, and not just act a lie, this puts Mary in the rock-slide analogy where she is in danger trusting Wilma...and never knows it.
    Further, if Wilma was doing this re a stranger that was at Wilma's home-party for whatever, the stranger's trust may not be necessarily relevent, but, expectation of Wilma's respect for rights still is (hence, Wilma's moral obligations). Even the lack of attempting to contact the stranger is counting on their never contacting Wilma who is still de facto pretending that she knows nothing about the loss, and may or may not be ready to lie to keep on possessing the gained ring.
    Another angle to all this is, IF the one the gain is taken from discovers that Wilma has it, and Wilma refuses to hand it over (or recompense...on the other's terms), the readiness/'threat' of physical force is inevitable to keep the item, and Wilma knows it.

    Finally, sometimes Rand only used the term 'force' and other times 'force and fraud.' If 'fraud,' as I argue above as being implied, is basically coverable under 'force,' why ever use both terms at all? I'd suggest that when she used both she was merely emphasizing that she never ONLY meant mere physical force (or it's threat.)

    Hope this covers some of the perplexities (which even I had to think about) re the terminologies.

LLAP
J-D

(Edited by John Dailey on 8/12, 4:01pm)

Post 12

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 3:34pm

Pantalaimon, a very intelligent poster from the ancient pre-Solo2.0 days, provided some interesting quotes that highlight the confusion on this issue:

"So long as men desire to live together, no man may *initiate*--do you hear me? no man may *start*--the use of physical force against others." (John Galt, Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged)

"The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may *initiate* the use of physical force against others." ("The Objectivist Ethics," Virtue of Selfishness)

"Men have the right to use physical force *only* in retaliation and *only* against those who initiate its use." ("The Objectivist Ethics," Virtue of Selfishness)

"The moral absolute should be: if and when, in any dispute, one side *initiates* the use of physical force, *that side is wrong*--and no consideration or discussion of the issues is necessary or appropriate." ("Brief Comments", The Objectivist, March 1969)

I've never heard any Objectivist admit that all of these bold statements, by Objectivism's best two spokesmen, concerning one of the most critical issues in Ayn Rand's philosophy, are simply *wrong*. Even according to Objectivism they are wrong.

Fraud may be a type of "force", but fraud is certainly not "physical force." All these quotes specifically say "physical force", and not just "force".

According to these quotes, if someone commits fraud--which may be force, but isn't "physical force"--and you then *initiate* the use of physical force against this person, by arresting him, or beating him up to get your money back....then you would be wrong.

It seems strange to me that one of the most important sentences in Galt's speech is simply wrong, and nobody ever talks about it. It seems strange to me that Ayn Rand would have stated the "basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics" incorrectly.

Post 13

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 4:06pm

Thanx Daniel. I'll recheck quotes on the term 'force.' Maybe I was wrong...in my last paragraph.
I believe my earlier explanations re sensible use of the term 'force' still hold enough water, though.

LLAP
J-D

Post 14

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 5:20pm

Given that the use of both force and fraud bind the victim and deprive him of volition -- the former by making reason impossible and the latter by faking reality -- perhaps the principle should be that no individual may unjustly deprive another of his volition.

Post 15

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 12:48pm

It's not my view, but the following is worth mentioning. I recall an Objectivist who once wrote that he altogether rejects force in response to fraud. Instead, he embraces (1) "buyer beware" and (2) "you cannot cheat an honest man." That is, if people defraud you, then shame on you, not them. An honest person will do his or her homework or take the proper precautions so as not to be defrauded.

Jordan

Post 16

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 2:13pm

I would say that initiation of force begins as soon as you initiate actual plans to use force. This definition would allow for pre-emptive strikes, without having to wait until you are actually attacked and injured.

And it would not allow for going after those who are only contemplating or discussing the possible use of force. If they haven't yet begun to actually plan it, then they can't be taking it that seriously at that point in time.

Post 17

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 9:13pm

Celeste,

At what point does 'planning' begin? If a person is considering committing a crime, but has not yet produced any physical evidence to show his intent, is he planning? A simple crime of violence, an assault or theft, need not involve any tangible evidence before the crime is committed. There is not necessarily any 'paper trail'.

It seems that justified pre-emptive action against a suspected potential criminal requires special knowledge of the details of a conspiracy, if it exists. As a practical matter, these circumstances will almost never occur. It is far more likely that we will be building our case against the criminal after the crime is committed. Pre-emption is an attractive idea, but reality sets the bar extremely high, if we insist on true moral justification.

Post 18

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 6:55am

Celeste:

"... initiation of force begins as soon as you initiate actual plans to use force. This definition would allow for pre-emptive strikes, without having to wait until you are actually attacked and injured."

You're proposing prosecuting someone for what they think � a thought crime. There was a Law and Order or L.A. Law or other crime drama episode where a mild-mannered husband fantasized about killing his wife. He went so far as fashioning a club that exactly resembled the leg and part of the top of their kitchen table so that after he hit her with a well-aimed blow he could claim that she fell against the corner of it with her head. Would you prosecute the husband even if he didn't actually do anything? His 'planning' lasted years and years and became more and more elaborate and detailed as time went on.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 8/14, 9:04am)

Post 19

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 8:54pm