Objectivist Justice...

[Sophid]

One of the things that I think is most scary about justice systems as they exist today is situations like this...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/22/mas ... index.html

What does objectivist theory state about the right to privacy and silence during criminal investigations?

If we can trust an objectivist government (and I think we could), then should every citizen register their fingerprints / DNA to prevent cases of mistaken identity and to make investigations more effective? What about non-harmful truth serums?

[musashi]

Wouldn't it be great if the justice system could be objective? Unfortunately Judges and juries are called upon everyday to make very subjective decisions. And policemen are paid to bring in a bad guy even if he isn't the right bad guy.

It would take a highly detailed code of law to eliminate subjectivity correct? Unfortunately to me it seems that individual freedoms would then be dramatically constrained.

[Outsider]

If we can trust an objectivist government (and I think we could), then should every citizen register their fingerprints / DNA to prevent cases of mistaken identity and to make investigations more effective? What about non-harmful truth serums?

Making it mandatory for citizens to give filgerprints is violating their freedom. So even if something appears to be a good solution for something (for example: "government founded shelters for the poor will reduce crime rates and will be good for society"), remember that you can never protect people by bypassing (ignoring and violating) their rights. You cannot protect people by forcing them to give fingerprints.
Drinking fresh water may be healthy, still forcing people by law to drink fresh water would not be for them - it would be against them, since the freedom of each man to decide what is best for him/her is the most essential thing for their own happy existence.

[Sophid]

If we can trust an objectivist government (and I think we could), then should every citizen register their fingerprints / DNA to prevent cases of mistaken identity and to make investigations more effective? What about non-harmful truth serums?

Making it mandatory for citizens to give filgerprints is violating their freedom. So even if something appears to be a good solution for something (for example: "government founded shelters for the poor will reduce crime rates and will be good for society"), remember that you can never protect people by bypassing (ignoring and violating) their rights. You cannot protect people by forcing them to give fingerprints.
Drinking fresh water may be healthy, still forcing people by law to drink fresh water would not be for them - it would be against them, since the freedom of each man to decide what is best for him/her is the most essential thing for their own happy existence.

In an objectivist society with an objectivist government, is it a violation of freedom to register one's fingerprints and DNA?

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Only if its forced by law.

[musashi]

In an objectivist society with an objectivist government, is it a violation of freedom to register one's fingerprints and DNA?

Don’t you run into a small human nature problem here? Let’s give you the stoutly adherent Objectivist society and government. How about 99% of the people adhering to common tenets. That still leaves 1% deviants to exploit the system.

• I’ll play that corrupt person. Let’s say I have access to the database. I seek out people like private investigators and sell access to the data in exchange for bribes.
• What if I can use the database to predict genetic predisposition to illness. Would a medical insurance company pay me a finder’s fee in exchange for weeding out beneficiaries with only potential extreme future medical expenses?
• What if I gained the ability to corrupt the system? Would organized crime pay a premium to transfer their past crimes away from their physiometric identity and on to a patsy?

At face value the system seems innocent enough, but over time I could probably come up with a few more perversions. In one respect I think ideas like this are a root evil for Collectivism. Society decides to centralize (collect) power, and then a few corrupt individuals exploit the process for their own gains.

[Oleksandr]

Society decides to centralize (collect) power, and then a few corrupt individuals exploit the process for their own gains.

I'll make a correction here. It's not selfishness that's at fault here ("few exploit for their gain"). Such design is built for gang leaders. The first one to come in and seize power will get the power. That's just gang rule.

This must be carefully understood, because this is an example of how "perfect" theory and selfishness work in the mind of dumb butts around the world. "Perfect" theory is one that one sees "it helps the country! yay! everybody sacrifice your individual rights!" And then once their flawed system leads to its logical outcome where corrupt mob takes over the power they cry out that selfishness is at fault.

Nothing can be further from the truth. Mobs aren't selfish, just as robber isn't selfish. And their system was designed to be taken over by mobs. Reality wins again. A is A.

[Sophid]

Don’t you run into a small human nature problem here? Let’s give you the stoutly adherent Objectivist society and government. How about 99% of the people adhering to common tenets. That still leaves 1% deviants to exploit the system.

1% would still be a massive improvement over our current society.

• I’ll play that corrupt person. Let’s say I have access to the database. I seek out people like private investigators and sell access to the data in exchange for bribes.
• What if I can use the database to predict genetic predisposition to illness. Would a medical insurance company pay me a finder’s fee in exchange for weeding out beneficiaries with only potential extreme future medical expenses?
• What if I gained the ability to corrupt the system? Would organized crime pay a premium to transfer their past crimes away from their physiometric identity and on to a patsy?

A. There would be less people willing to pay a bribe given the parameters you have specified. 1%.
B. Do we have medical insurance in a objectivist society?
C. There is less organized crime. And would the criminal code allow past criminals to exist?

At face value the system seems innocent enough, but over time I could probably come up with a few more perversions. In one respect I think ideas like this are a root evil for Collectivism. Society decides to centralize (collect) power, and then a few corrupt individuals exploit the process for their own gains.

In this instance, society has not centralized power, it has overthrown its repressive government and is now deciding how its justice system is going to effectively protect citizens against criminals.

[Oleksandr]

B. Do we have medical insurance in a objectivist society?

Why wouldn't it? Medical insurance can be a fine private business.

[Kaimera Feran]

B. Do we have medical insurance in a objectivist society?

Why wouldn't it? Medical insurance can be a fine private business.

I would say that medical insurance, if anything, becomes more important in an objectivist society. Because you're certainly not going to be able to force everyone around you to help you pay for it through Medicaid/Welfare.

[musashi]

A. There would be less people willing to pay a bribe given the parameters you have specified. 1%.
B. Do we have medical insurance in a objectivist society?
C. There is less organized crime. And would the criminal code allow past criminals to exist?

Yeah I threw the 1% number thinking it was optimistic as well. But incarceration rates run about 0.5 to 2% (except in the US). And actually 1% is a fine number to have a big bunch of criminals. Let’s take a small country – 1 million people (my city has 3). That’s 10,000 deviants running around. Plenty of bad guys to flout the law and cooperatively engage in criminal enterprise. Obviously its hard to prove, but I think some of the most famous places for organized crime (Sicily – La Cosa Nostra, Japan – Yakuza) actually have very low crime rates. Yes I’m just considering Sicily, not the corruption of mainland Italy. Italy would blow my example apart.

In this instance, society has not centralized power, it has overthrown its repressive government and is now deciding how its justice system is going to effectively protect citizens against criminals.

Wait a sec… You can’t have your cake and eat too. On one hand you want to centralize and universally apply DNA and finger print databases. And on the other you want to de-centralize power. How is this done? Don’t these two trains go in opposite directions?

[musashi]

Mobs aren't selfish, just as robber isn't selfish. And their system was designed to be taken over by mobs. Reality wins again. A is A.

I get how a mob could have any variety of motive, or none at all.

But it seems to me that self-interest has to me the most frequent motivator for robbers. Is this because the object of their crime does not belong to them? However if they succeed in their crime, they may find a mechanism to launder the booty, and make the appearance of legitimate ownership. Crime does pay, until it doesn’t.

[Sophid]

Wait a sec… You can’t have your cake and eat too. On one hand you want to centralize and universally apply DNA and finger print databases. And on the other you want to de-centralize power. How is this done? Don’t these two trains go in opposite directions?

Think of all the power that governments have now. Taxation, commercial regulation, conscription, registration of one's address, inspection for your car, can't get married without a valid birth certificate, and on and on and on. In an objectivist society, almost everything goes away. Power is definitely de-centralized.

Now think of all the power that the police force has over us now. The records they keep, arresting people for disrespecting an officer...

The government as a whole is all well and good, but I am attempting to explore the concept of the justice system. And in an objectivist society, the justice system is fully functional, unlike the tax system. Which means, it is funded voluntarily.

Like in all other aspects of objectivist government, actions revolving around the justice system are voluntary. So my question is, should this be something that citizens are willing to undergo willingly, in order to have a more effective justice system?

[Outsider]

Sophid said: "Like in all other aspects of objectivist government, actions revolving around the justice system are voluntary. So my question is, should this be something that citizens are willing to undergo willingly, in order to have a more effective justice system?"

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "this" (bold). Do you mean "actions revolving around the justice system"?

If so, then not all actions revolving around the justice system should be voluntary.

Here is my understanding of the subject: A government is like a body guard. You pay a bunch of people so that they would protect you in case of initiation of force against you. This is embedded in the contract between you and this bunch. Only, ideally, this bunch of people that you're paying, is not paid to just shoot whoever is a nuisance to you, but it recognizes people's rights, and the need to first validate that indeed there was initiation of force against you.
[Since this is the only way they can get costumers (by acting justly). If they biasly "protect" those who pay more, it's a business no one would want to invest in. In order to get costumers, they have to demonstrate that what they run is indeed a system of justice. As a small example, would you want to pay a body guard that might shoot you tomorrow if your neighbor pays them enough money?]
As your body guard, they will forcefully bring to trial everyone who appears to have initiated force against you. They will bring them to trial, as oppose to shooting them, for the purpose of demonstrating that they provide a service of executing justice.

Now, suppose people are satisfied with this business, they want to join in to enjoy the protection. Suppose they are not satisfied, or don't want to invest the money - they can still live in society and enjoy some part of protection which is achieved by the other people who pay (such as "cleaner" streets).
A person has a right to act as he/she please. If they do not want to use this business for self protection, they can defend themselves in the way they see fit. However, if by acting so they violated someone's right, eventually this business will bring them to trial.

Personally, I don't think there should be one government. The meaning of forcing just one government on all people is that if a bunch of people decide to start a new business for protecting individual rights, then the previous government would come and arrest them. And I don't see where such right comes from.
Government would best function as any other business under capitalism - in a free market.

So when two people are about to enter contract - they would need to agree among themselves which business of enforcing justice they want to use, in case the need arises. Normally, they would pick the most objective one. So acting justly would have to be proven by that business, not just assumed or pretended.
If they do not agree on one business, but instead each one wants to use his own business, they would have a more difficult time when the deal hit crisis. In that case, their two companies would have to deal with one another - to exchange information and pronounce verdict. (I've seen this in car insurance companies. Really neat). If the two companies disagree (as sometimes happen) - they can choose to go to a third company who would be the final judge, or they can use force against whoever they concluded deserves it. Using force like that is an expensive mess though, and companies act accordingly.
Sometimes, one business would indeed be acting unjustly, and therefor it is good to have the ability to oppose with force to such a gang. (unlike the case of one government, where there is not much to do in case of injustice). And sometimes it would be a case of disagreement over the meaning of evidence, and would be solved like I described above.

That's all my thoughts for now.

[Sophid]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "this" (bold). Do you mean "actions revolving around the justice system"?

THIS being my original topic of discussion, the voluntary reigstration of DNA and fingerprints.

[musashi]

The government as a whole is all well and good, but I am attempting to explore the concept of the justice system. And in an objectivist society, the justice system is fully functional, unlike the tax system. Which means, it is funded voluntarily.

Maybe, living in the United States, I’m a little closer to this system you suggest. Justice in the US is funded voluntarily – in the US you get as much justice as you can buy.

Or another way of stating this is that the poor guy gets screwed.

I enjoyed reading Dead Man Walking. The book is nothing like the movie. Actually the book is steeped in demographic data and case history surrounding the death penalty. The author just put the story in to liven the reading up. One of the things I took away from the book was that rich people do not get executed in the US. If you are poor, if you are illiterate, if you rely upon the state to provide your defense in a capital case – the death penalty just might be for you.

So how would the Objectivist voluntarily funded Justice system differ from the US?