No such thing as without a doubt. 10 people can witness the same event/crime and it will be astonishing if three recall it the same way. People see what they want to see. I doubt you would ever come to a determination of “without a doubt”, as you sound like you are opposed to DP.
@@SpacePatrollerLaserno, she based it on logical arguments, which is good. However, that doesn't mean calling her heartless is correct, because even decisions made from a place of empathy have their own internal logic, with which they should be consistent with.
@@apokalypthoapokalypsys9573 What it does mean is calling her "hearltess" is a non sequitur as it does not follow and it is irrelevant to the matter. The only question that matters is, were her arguments based on logic. They were not as they proposed a contradiction. Not executing someone who deserved it (the withholding of the deserved). Most such cases are cut and dried
there is nothing outside of the scope of philosophy, I admire Ayn Rand for her philosophical contributions even though I have little regard for them personally.
Some years ago I spoke to a Sydney based QC friend of my brother, regarding a friend of mine who had been found guilty of a crime I believed he did not commit. When the QC told me that once a jury, no matter how dodgy they seemed to be, had found the accused guilty the only appeal available was in regard to the way the judge conducted the case! My reaction was to say “all I know about justice in this country is the fact that the last man hanged in this country was innocent”. His IMMEDIATE reply was “yes, the screw shot the wrong man”.
WRONG ! Wish the Courts and Justice systems could UPDATE their scope. Rules and assumptions to a more SCIENTIFIC methodology. No great scientific or technical advancement starts with the proof worked out…..
@@DavidLS1 Of those there are very few: a fraction of a percent and those discoveries prove the efficacy of the current backstop. Many of those have been found to be due to misdeeds or sloppiness. We may have to consider the fractional probabiility of being erroneiously convicted and executeed part of the risk of living in a social system and far, far outweighed by the advantages and relegate 95% of the drama to the world of fiction from which it comes. To get a sense of this, go listen to Rand's comments on "innicent civilians" in wars
Does not matter that there were just a "few errors". 1 out of millions should be enough to deem this practice immoral. Capital punishment is irreversible.
At the time Ayn Rand was alive, technology was not sufficiently advanced to determine with 100% certainty whether someone is guilty of murder. Fast-forward 40 years to the 2020s, and we have DNA science, ubiquitous cameras, facial recognition, and other Artificial Intelligence technologies like biometrics, which greatly limit the probabilities of a mistaken verdict. We are still left with malicious human deceit such as corrupt cops, corrupt judges, and corrupt juries, but errors are undeniably much rarer in modern days. So capital punishment should be evaluated considering both the risk of error and its effectiveness as a powerful deterrent of future crime.
Limiting the probabilities of a mistaken verdict is not the same as eliminating those probabilities. With today's AI deep fakes, even video evidence of a murder is suspect.
Also, even if the chance of error is minute, say 0.00001% that is enough to outlaw capital punishment - because it is irreversible. There is no room for considering the risk of applying an irreversible punishment.
She says it is better that nine guilty men are sentenced to life imprisonment than that one innocent man is hanged. But guilty men are not sentenced to life imprisonment. In the UK they serve only a few years.
Sounds plausible; it actually doesn’t seem as it has worked out, punishment has for the group another OBJECTIVE - to alert weak criminally minded individuals - “BUDDY ! THIS AWAITS U ! The deterrent factor has been overlooked way too long.
@@kenrobba5831 'Casual observation' isn't very scientific. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the U.S. violent and property crime rates each fell 71% between 1993 and 2022.
An immoral, evil person initiates force (i.e., violates informed consent) and believes that their evil actions are good. The true crime is the violation of informed consent; that is the essence of the non-aggression principle. *Non-Aggression Principle (NAP): Initiation of force (coercion, corruption, violence, fraud, theft) is immoral; the proportional response to the initiator of force is moral.*
I mean, usually in prison you still have chances to appeal and prove your innocence. Once in a while one hears of someone that was freed because of new evidence, usually DNA test and such.
No other individual (not even the State) should be able to take anyones life with the exepmtion of self defense. Capital punishment is inmoral because it is not self defence.
@@stigcc But what if it is clear who a murderer is, with credible witnesses and videos? Just say that you are against capital punishment and do not try to give a reason why. To say that one can never have 100% is illogical. One may as way say that one could have 100% with anything,
*The Libertarian Contradiction* Perhaps the best illustration of how the belief in "authority" warps thinking and gets in the way of achieving freedom is the fact that there is a "Libertarian" political party. The heart and soul of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle: the idea that initiating force or fraud against another is always wrong, and that force is justified only if used in defense against aggression. The principle is perfectly sound, but trying to make it a reality via any political process is completely self-contradictory, because "government" and non-aggression are utterly incompatible. If the organization called "government" stopped using any threats or violence, except to defend against aggressors, it would cease to be "government." It would have no right to rule, no right to "tax," no right to "legislate," no monopoly on protection, and no right to do anything which any other human being does not have the right to do. -- Rose, Larken. The Most Dangerous Superstition (p. 174). Unknown. Kindle Edition.
"The citizens have delegated the power to the government" And the government is made of citizens. There is only one true justice and that is the justice you create yourself.
Her argument has been very well known for a long time and she is very likely not the first one to make it, but it is not very convincing! E.g. capital punishment does not have to be executed right away. The law can provide for e.g. a five year waiting period to minimize the chance of error Ms. Rand mentioned.
@@bingeltube No it isn't. You just didn't get it. Since eliminating the chance of erroneous executions is impossible, we shouldn't have a death penalty at all.
@@DavidLS1 Maybe you want to watch the beginning of the above Ayn Rand video again. She is actually for capital punishment. Perhaps, you missed that part!
@@bingeltube You're the one with the comprehension problem. Did you go to college? Did you even finish high school? Rand says that she approves of the concept of capital punishment in some cases, but goes on to say that, because errors are possible, capital punishment should be outlawed. ( 2:32 )
Good question, under the Randian concept of a proper government, no one should be forced to pay for the goods and services that such a government provides, other than by voluntary means. In this sense capital punishment certainly is a cheaper method to deal with convicted murderers, though, as Rand points out herself, it will come with the risk of executing a potentially innocent man in case justice errs. Rand is not likely to go for this trade-off since it would contradict and corrupt the Objectivist virtue of justice, but given that man still has the potential to err, this then doesn't provide us with any solutions since to arrive at justice essentially man has to pronounce justice over other man so the death penalty is then in jeopardy. The way i view it though, the punishment should be proportional to the crime and the financial burden should not be shifted onto the individual level. Both restitution and retribution should be considered as viable options. The market can be looked at to help provide solutions, think of the concept of debtors' prison and imagine some private insurance agency running it, in this way even a murderer can at least partly compensate the next of kin of the victim by working off his debt, and the financial burden would not be shifted onto people who did not consent to it. Given the case of proven first degree murder (both in mens rea and actus reus) both restitution or retribution could possibly be applied. Restitution can occur if there is an insurance agency that is willing to take up the criminals debt and have him work it off. If no such agency is willing to take on this risk then retribution remains as an option, proportional to the crime of first degree murder. In this case that would result in a justification for capital punishment since (1)it is a proportional punishment to first degree murder and (2) no one else was willing to pay off the debt so restitution wasn't an option, and (3) justice will have been served and (4) the next of kin to the victim will have been made whole as much as was possible given the circumstances of such a scenario.
I believe it is inaccurate to cite God for saying that. More likely the source you are quoting is The Bible, which also says ‘thou shalt not kill’. In The Bible, Jesus also makes quite the fuss about forgiveness. So do we ask for forgiveness before or after killing the murderer?
But what if it is clear who a murderer is, with credible witnesses and videos? Just say that you are against capital punishment and do not try to give a reason why.
I think that you are ignoring relevant facts, you are ignoring the context. Death is not like other consequences, it's not comparable to imprisonment or even torture. And the justice system is unique in its functions, it is not like a business, or science, or engineering.
The justice system is a good and service demanded, and therefore it should be treated like a business or recognized it has been seized by government control.
@@The_Schizoid_Man Wait, do you really need me to explain to you in what ways death is fundamentally different from all other kinds of punishment? Have you even read Rand?
@@The_Schizoid_Man It is not a good or a service. The justice system is not a business like any other and it should not be treated as such. I take it that you are a libertarian and not an objectivist if you claim such nonsense.
This argument against capital punishment destroys Objectivism. If we hold that capital punishment is just, having been earned by the perp, then say that because Man is not infallible, it cannot be permitted is to say that full justice is not feasible. What does that do to Justice as a major Objectivist virtue? It looks to me like the Analyitic-Synthetic Dichotomy, which, in Epistemology, is the Pheomenal-Noumenal Dichotomy. If one major premise or part of any philosophy goes down, the whole thing colapses. Since all major virtues of Objectivism are based on reason and this collapses reason, then Objectivism collapses is this dichotomy is ture. In 1988, Peikoff repudiated the Objectivist opposition to capital punishment on Mark Scott's prgram WOR 710 AM wkdys 3 to 5 PM, in connection with the Lisa Nussbaum case. At some time, Rand must have told Peikoff that , while inclined to ban capital punishment, which would mean even in the face of absolute proof of guilt, she was not settled on the matter
Rand is saying if the court erred, their mistake cannot be corrected if the convicted has already been executed. Objective is not infallible, so I see no conflict in her reasoning.
I hear what you are saying but I also think you might be ignoring the context here. She lays out some of the relevant context in the beginning. The judicial system of her time, and of today, is seriously flawed and under such circumstances capital punishment might not be right.
How does this collapse reason? There is no concept "justice" without the concept "man," and a concept includes all the characteristics of its referents, including the fact that man is not omniscient. This holds true no matter what Peikoff may have said on the Mark Scott show.
The definition of justice, IIRC is "the granting of the dsevered and the withholding of the underserved". What can be the ONLY proper recompense for the wilfull, uprovoked taking of a human life? We are told that the perp "morally deserves to die" Yes or no? Now we are told that that cannot be carried out so that is s urrendered because we cannot do the impossible (be omnisicient or infallible). We are told that, in the matter of principless "to surrender an inch is to surrender totally"; yes or no? Also as part of a trial, the jury is instructed in its deliberation "beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certitude" and there is the appeals process. Yes or no? Now back to the first part. What happnes the instant the underserved is granted or the deserved is withheld? and this is instituted knowingly and deliberately? What happnes to any philsophy in which Justice; i.e. the granting of the deserved and the withholding of the undeserved, and as a major principles is compromised, because it belies a basic idea of Objectivism that "Reason is the SOLE tool of knowledge" and as such "is sufficient 100% of the time" to yield a correct answer based on the evidence of the senses". Once you knowingly contravene those two ideas because Reason is not infallible, then reason is, invalidated and one is withing one's rights to search for an infallible tool of knowledge in order to live safely. This oppes the door to faith, instinct, "in your heart you know...", innate knowledge or whatever Donald Trum or Joe Biden, or Elmer Gantry or the Spanish Inquistion (I bet you did not expect that) wish to substitute for Reason; i.e. anything BUT Reason. The ollapse o reason to a demand for the impossible to implement justice, a significant virtue in Objectvism, collapses Objectivism. At this point, even the illusion of certitude offered by Religion, Faschism, democracy or any collective mind is preferable or at least bearable That is no longer an issue since Pekioff repudiated it
The burden of proof for the death penalty should change from no reasonable doubt to no doubt whatsoever.
No such thing as without a doubt. 10 people can witness the same event/crime and it will be astonishing if three recall it the same way. People see what they want to see. I doubt you would ever come to a determination of “without a doubt”, as you sound like you are opposed to DP.
This is the woman who is accused of being heartless.
Did she do what she did here on the basies of feelings?
@@SpacePatrollerLaserno, she based it on logical arguments, which is good. However, that doesn't mean calling her heartless is correct, because even decisions made from a place of empathy have their own internal logic, with which they should be consistent with.
@@apokalypthoapokalypsys9573 What it does mean is calling her "hearltess" is a non sequitur as it does not follow and it is irrelevant to the matter. The only question that matters is, were her arguments based on logic. They were not as they proposed a contradiction. Not executing someone who deserved it (the withholding of the deserved). Most such cases are cut and dried
People Care too much about emotions of others
She shows she is heartless here. She explained everything from a very RATIONAL point of view, no feelings involved. And she's right of course.
Ayn Rand’s view on this topic, with her conditions mentioned in this video, is on target!
She was not sure of that, since she said whe was only "inclined" wihc implied a lack of full certitude, and Peikoff saw otherwise
@@SpacePatrollerLaser proper proof of evidences..
I think that’s very clear
Hard to argue against that
And yet so many Americans do.
The explanation was very good and I agree.
there is nothing outside of the scope of philosophy, I admire Ayn Rand for her philosophical contributions even though I have little regard for them personally.
To get a feel for the complexities she discusses, check out the movie "The Life of David Gale" (2003).
That's a really good movie!!! Such a strange twist. But had me biting my nails !
Some years ago I spoke to a Sydney based QC friend of my brother, regarding a friend of mine who had been found guilty of a crime I believed he did not commit. When the QC told me that once a jury, no matter how dodgy they seemed to be, had found the accused guilty the only appeal available was in regard to the way the judge conducted the case! My reaction was to say “all I know about justice in this country is the fact that the last man hanged in this country was innocent”. His IMMEDIATE reply was “yes, the screw shot the wrong man”.
exactly the problem well spoken
Exceptional intro voiceover!
She is absolutely right.
Prove it/ Right now that is an unsupported claim, hunce irrational
WRONG !
Wish the Courts and Justice systems could UPDATE their scope. Rules and assumptions to a more SCIENTIFIC methodology.
No great scientific or technical advancement starts with the proof worked out…..
@@SpacePatrollerLaser To prove it, you only have to look as far as all the convicted criminals who have later been found to be innocent.
@@DavidLS1 Of those there are very few: a fraction of a percent and those discoveries prove the efficacy of the current backstop. Many of those have been found to be due to misdeeds or sloppiness. We may have to consider the fractional probabiility of being erroneiously convicted and executeed part of the risk of living in a social system and far, far outweighed by the advantages and relegate 95% of the drama to the world of fiction from which it comes. To get a sense of this, go listen to Rand's comments on "innicent civilians" in wars
Does not matter that there were just a "few errors". 1 out of millions should be enough to deem this practice immoral. Capital punishment is irreversible.
At the time Ayn Rand was alive, technology was not sufficiently advanced to determine with 100% certainty whether someone is guilty of murder. Fast-forward 40 years to the 2020s, and we have DNA science, ubiquitous cameras, facial recognition, and other Artificial Intelligence technologies like biometrics, which greatly limit the probabilities of a mistaken verdict. We are still left with malicious human deceit such as corrupt cops, corrupt judges, and corrupt juries, but errors are undeniably much rarer in modern days. So capital punishment should be evaluated considering both the risk of error and its effectiveness as a powerful deterrent of future crime.
True but like you say with better technology it can also be hacked. And therefore it is not foolproof. The answer of Ayn was very good.
Incorrect. There are many instances in which 100% proof could be obtained.
Say you happened to be in Fords theatre.
Limiting the probabilities of a mistaken verdict is not the same as eliminating those probabilities. With today's AI deep fakes, even video evidence of a murder is suspect.
You thought AI was reliable? False positives are much more common than false negatives.
Also, even if the chance of error is minute, say 0.00001% that is enough to outlaw capital punishment - because it is irreversible. There is no room for considering the risk of applying an irreversible punishment.
The problem with this logic is that life imprisonment is dramatically worse than ceasing to exist.
Ayn Rand may have changed her mind
if she had lived long enough to read
“A Prescription for the Appellate Caseload Explosion” of 1984.
She says it is better that nine guilty men are sentenced to life imprisonment than that one innocent man is hanged. But guilty men are not sentenced to life imprisonment. In the UK they serve only a few years.
Of course there are many instances of total proof. Why does she say otherwise.
Sounds plausible; it actually doesn’t seem as it has worked out, punishment has for the group another OBJECTIVE - to alert weak criminally minded individuals - “BUDDY ! THIS AWAITS U !
The deterrent factor has been overlooked way too long.
Does the death penalty actually deter?
@@DavidLS1 it does! Just a casual observation demonstrates the acceleration of crime as punishment has been tempered.
@@kenrobba5831 'Casual observation' isn't very scientific. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the U.S. violent and property crime rates each fell 71% between 1993 and 2022.
An immoral, evil person initiates force (i.e., violates informed consent) and believes that their evil actions are good.
The true crime is the violation of informed consent; that is the essence of the non-aggression principle.
*Non-Aggression Principle (NAP): Initiation of force (coercion, corruption, violence, fraud, theft) is immoral; the proportional response to the initiator of force is moral.*
"An 'eye-for-an-eye' is practiced by barbarians - not civilized men." - Glenn Goryl
An eye for an eye means only the perpetrator is punished, not the whole village.
Japan is not civilized?
@@answerman9933 Not when it comes to capital punishment.
When a civilization is established; up and running, please notify me immediately. Otherwise……..
In other words, two wrongs don’t make a right.
She is marvelous and beautiful.
Not really a big difference in life in prison or the death penalty for a wrongly convicted person though...might be even worse, except for hope.
I mean, usually in prison you still have chances to appeal and prove your innocence. Once in a while one hears of someone that was freed because of new evidence, usually DNA test and such.
No other individual (not even the State) should be able to take anyones life with the exepmtion of self defense. Capital punishment is inmoral because it is not self defence.
+1. No State has the right to take a life. Especially given there are cases where innocent people have been found guilty.
The word highlighting is just distracting, makes it harder to focus on what's actually being said.
Capital punishment is correct.
In some cases
@@David-yw2lv Yes. In some cases.
Nope
Yes, in some cases. And Rand agrees. But, since you can never have 100% proof, you should refrain.
@@stigcc But what if it is clear who a murderer is, with credible witnesses and videos?
Just say that you are against capital punishment and do not try to give a reason why. To say that one can never have 100% is illogical. One may as way say that one could have 100% with anything,
*The Libertarian Contradiction*
Perhaps the best illustration of how the belief in "authority" warps thinking and gets in the way of achieving freedom is the fact that there is a "Libertarian" political party. The heart and soul of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle: the idea that initiating force or fraud against another is always wrong, and that force is justified only if used in defense against aggression. The principle is perfectly sound, but trying to make it a reality via any political process is completely self-contradictory, because "government" and non-aggression are utterly incompatible. If the organization called "government" stopped using any threats or violence, except to defend against aggressors, it would cease to be "government." It would have no right to rule, no right to "tax," no right to "legislate," no monopoly on protection, and no right to do anything which any other human being does not have the right to do.
-- Rose, Larken. The Most Dangerous Superstition (p. 174). Unknown. Kindle Edition.
"The citizens have delegated the power to the government"
And the government is made of citizens.
There is only one true justice and that is the justice you create yourself.
Word
Her argument has been very well known for a long time and she is very likely not the first one to make it, but it is not very convincing! E.g. capital punishment does not have to be executed right away. The law can provide for e.g. a five year waiting period to minimize the chance of error Ms. Rand mentioned.
Minimizing the chance of error is not the same as eliminating it.
@@DavidLS1 Eliminating chances is impossible! Your argument is a reductio ad absurdum!
@@bingeltube No it isn't. You just didn't get it. Since eliminating the chance of erroneous executions is impossible, we shouldn't have a death penalty at all.
@@DavidLS1 Maybe you want to watch the beginning of the above Ayn Rand video again. She is actually for capital punishment. Perhaps, you missed that part!
@@bingeltube You're the one with the comprehension problem. Did you go to college? Did you even finish high school? Rand says that she approves of the concept of capital punishment in some cases, but goes on to say that, because errors are possible, capital punishment should be outlawed. ( 2:32 )
And where do the resources come from to custom house, board, doctor, entertain, guard, etc., these nine murderers for life?
Good question, under the Randian concept of a proper government, no one should be forced to pay for the goods and services that such a government provides, other than by voluntary means. In this sense capital punishment certainly is a cheaper method to deal with convicted murderers, though, as Rand points out herself, it will come with the risk of executing a potentially innocent man in case justice errs. Rand is not likely to go for this trade-off since it would contradict and corrupt the Objectivist virtue of justice, but given that man still has the potential to err, this then doesn't provide us with any solutions since to arrive at justice essentially man has to pronounce justice over other man so the death penalty is then in jeopardy.
The way i view it though, the punishment should be proportional to the crime and the financial burden should not be shifted onto the individual level. Both restitution and retribution should be considered as viable options. The market can be looked at to help provide solutions, think of the concept of debtors' prison and imagine some private insurance agency running it, in this way even a murderer can at least partly compensate the next of kin of the victim by working off his debt, and the financial burden would not be shifted onto people who did not consent to it.
Given the case of proven first degree murder (both in mens rea and actus reus) both restitution or retribution could possibly be applied. Restitution can occur if there is an insurance agency that is willing to take up the criminals debt and have him work it off. If no such agency is willing to take on this risk then retribution remains as an option, proportional to the crime of first degree murder. In this case that would result in a justification for capital punishment since (1)it is a proportional punishment to first degree murder and (2) no one else was willing to pay off the debt so restitution wasn't an option, and (3) justice will have been served and (4) the next of kin to the victim will have been made whole as much as was possible given the circumstances of such a scenario.
"if man sheds mans blood, by man shall his blood also be shed" -GOD
No, you are putting ideology above humanity.
@@anthonyclarke5579 , yes, GOD's instructions are for our own benefit. HE is above humanity.
I believe it is inaccurate to cite God for saying that. More likely the source you are quoting is The Bible, which also says ‘thou shalt not kill’. In The Bible, Jesus also makes quite the fuss about forgiveness. So do we ask for forgiveness before or after killing the murderer?
Let me be clear I am atheist. I do not adhere to religion. Each to their own but I have no need. Thank you.
. . . there is always some middleman speaking on behalf of God, why doesn't God himself show up and speak?
Given the objective precision of DNA analysis, error is lessened considerably. As such, Ms Rand may have changed her conclusion.
Considerably is not enough. Even if there is a minute chance of error, we should not apply an irreversible punishment.
George H. Smith was a great atheist.
But he was not for capital punishment. He was wrong in this point.
But what if it is clear who a murderer is, with credible witnesses and videos?
Just say that you are against capital punishment and do not try to give a reason why.
So basically rand was being a skeptic here and claiming we can't know if a man is truly guilty. Cringe.
I think that you are ignoring relevant facts, you are ignoring the context. Death is not like other consequences, it's not comparable to imprisonment or even torture. And the justice system is unique in its functions, it is not like a business, or science, or engineering.
The justice system is a good and service demanded, and therefore it should be treated like a business or recognized it has been seized by government control.
@@DinkSmalwood you claim it's not comparable, but never justify this. You say I'm ignoring context, but never justify this.
@@The_Schizoid_Man Wait, do you really need me to explain to you in what ways death is fundamentally different from all other kinds of punishment? Have you even read Rand?
@@The_Schizoid_Man It is not a good or a service. The justice system is not a business like any other and it should not be treated as such. I take it that you are a libertarian and not an objectivist if you claim such nonsense.
This argument against capital punishment destroys Objectivism. If we hold that capital punishment is just, having been earned by the perp, then say that because Man is not infallible, it cannot be permitted is to say that full justice is not feasible. What does that do to Justice as a major Objectivist virtue? It looks to me like the Analyitic-Synthetic Dichotomy, which, in Epistemology, is the Pheomenal-Noumenal Dichotomy. If one major premise or part of any philosophy goes down, the whole thing colapses. Since all major virtues of Objectivism are based on reason and this collapses reason, then Objectivism collapses is this dichotomy is ture. In 1988, Peikoff repudiated the Objectivist opposition to capital punishment on Mark Scott's prgram WOR 710 AM wkdys 3 to 5 PM, in connection with the Lisa Nussbaum case. At some time, Rand must have told Peikoff that , while inclined to ban capital punishment, which would mean even in the face of absolute proof of guilt, she was not settled on the matter
Rand is saying if the court erred, their mistake cannot be corrected if the convicted has already been executed. Objective is not infallible, so I see no conflict in her reasoning.
I hear what you are saying but I also think you might be ignoring the context here. She lays out some of the relevant context in the beginning. The judicial system of her time, and of today, is seriously flawed and under such circumstances capital punishment might not be right.
How does this collapse reason? There is no concept "justice" without the concept "man," and a concept includes all the characteristics of its referents, including the fact that man is not omniscient. This holds true no matter what Peikoff may have said on the Mark Scott show.
The definition of justice, IIRC is "the granting of the dsevered and the withholding of the underserved". What can be the ONLY proper recompense for the wilfull, uprovoked taking of a human life? We are told that the perp "morally deserves to die" Yes or no? Now we are told that that cannot be carried out so that is s urrendered because we cannot do the impossible (be omnisicient or infallible). We are told that, in the matter of principless "to surrender an inch is to surrender totally"; yes or no? Also as part of a trial, the jury is instructed in its deliberation "beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certitude" and there is the appeals process. Yes or no? Now back to the first part. What happnes the instant the underserved is granted or the deserved is withheld? and this is instituted knowingly and deliberately? What happnes to any philsophy in which Justice; i.e. the granting of the deserved and the withholding of the undeserved, and as a major principles is compromised, because it belies a basic idea of Objectivism that "Reason is the SOLE tool of knowledge" and as such "is sufficient 100% of the time" to yield a correct answer based on the evidence of the senses". Once you knowingly contravene those two ideas because Reason is not infallible, then reason is, invalidated and one is withing one's rights to search for an infallible tool of knowledge in order to live safely. This oppes the door to faith, instinct, "in your heart you know...", innate knowledge or whatever Donald Trum or Joe Biden, or Elmer Gantry or the Spanish Inquistion (I bet you did not expect that) wish to substitute for Reason; i.e. anything BUT Reason. The ollapse o reason to a demand for the impossible to implement justice, a significant virtue in Objectvism, collapses Objectivism. At this point, even the illusion of certitude offered by Religion, Faschism, democracy or any collective mind is preferable or at least bearable
That is no longer an issue since Pekioff repudiated it
@@SpacePatrollerLaser
Why do you feel the need for Objectivism to collapse? Isn’t ignoring it sufficient?
He views are shallow and naive.