Vigilantism - Moral?

[Werewolf]

The government of the USA was formed on the principle that the power of government is derived from the PEOPLE (its not - but for the sake of argument let's just assume that's still true).

Thus - by extension - the power of the agents of government is derived from the people.

If the agents of the government fail to do their jobs either thru corruption, inaction, incomptence or lack of resources it becomes incumbent upon the people to assume the tasks of the failed agents of said government.

Thus vigilantism is not only moral but in some - if not many - cases entirely necessary.

Which begs two questions?

1. Why is the government so loathe to allow the citizens it serves and from whom it's power is derived to pick up the slack when necessary?
2. Why are so many citizens so absolutely opposed to the people picking up the slack when necessary?

[The Rabbi]

The government of the USA was formed on the principle that the power of government is derived from the PEOPLE (its not - but for the sake of argument let's just assume that's still true).

Thus - by extension - the power of the agents of government is derived from the people.

If the agents of the government fail to do their jobs either thru corruption, inaction, incomptence or lack of resources it becomes incumbent upon the people to assume the tasks of the failed agents of said government.

Thus vigilantism is not only moral but in some - if not many - cases entirely necessary.

Which begs two questions?

1. Why is the government so loathe to allow the citizens it serves and from whom it's power is derived to pick up the slack when necessary?
2. Why are so many citizens so absolutely opposed to the people picking up the slack when necessary?

I lost count of the inaccuracies and logical fallacies here.
But the next time you see someone parked over time at a meter and the meter maid has failed to give them a ticket, blast their tires out.

[BrokenPaw]

Werewolf,

My guess would be that it's because the idea behind government is that it's (supposed to be) a way of moderating the diverse elements of a society into something like a consensus, and then taking action under the common beliefs that most of the people in the society hold.

Thus, if (for example) most of the people in the society believe that theft is wrong, and that the proper punishment for it involves restitution and being confined for ten years to Think About What You've Done, then that's what the government will impose on the thief.  

The reason that government frowns on vigilantism and the reason that society as a whole frowns upon it are divergent.  Government frowns upon it mostly when government has become so large and ineffective that its only remaining goal is to be self-supportive.  Vigilantism and other forms of citizens taking the law into their own hands are not as opposed by agents of government when those agents are trying to serve their actual purpose but just don't have the resources to do it.  (Outlawry was an example of this; declare a criminal an outlaw, meaning that he was not under the protection of law, thus making him perfectly legal to kill, and the citizenry takes care of it).

Society, on the other hand, frowns upon vigilantism because a vigilante is an individual, not statisitically representative of the consensus of the society.  So if a vigilante believes that the penalty for theft should be evisceration, he's carrying out the law as he sees it, but he's imposing a harsher penalty than the society supports, and so he's viewed as an extremist.

It is almost a de facto thing that a vigilante will be viewed as an extremist by society, because the views of any one individual will always be more polarized and extreme than the collective views of a society that comprises many individuals with differing views.  And only a person who feels like "not enough is being done" will resort to vigilantism.  Therefore, a vigilante's actions will always be harsher than the society at large supports.

Now.  Legitimate government comes from the consent of the governed, so if the government is failing at its job, the consent of the governed should be removed, and given to a new plan or body of people who can do a better job.  And in a society where the people who understood that fact were the majority, it would happen that way.  

In a society that gets angry that they might have to miss an episode of American Idol because there's a special news report about "Some political thing.  I hate politics!", well, we get what we have now:  bread and circuses.

Just my thoughts, worth what you paid for them.
-BP

[Stand_watie]

The government of the USA was formed on the principle that the power of government is derived from the PEOPLE (its not - but for the sake of argument let's just assume that's still true).

Thus - by extension - the power of the agents of government is derived from the people.

If the agents of the government fail to do their jobs either thru corruption, inaction, incomptence or lack of resources it becomes incumbent upon the people to assume the tasks of the failed agents of said government.

Thus vigilantism is not only moral but in some - if not many - cases entirely necessary.

Which begs two questions?

1. Why is the government so loathe to allow the citizens it serves and from whom it's power is derived to pick up the slack when necessary?
2. Why are so many citizens so absolutely opposed to the people picking up the slack when necessary?

I lost count of the inaccuracies and logical fallacies here.
But the next time you see someone parked over time at a meter and the meter maid has failed to give them a ticket, blast their tires out.

This statement's accuracy depends upon your definition of vigilantism. The agent of the government in the case of parking violations is not authorized by law to damage property, but to issue a ticket, in essence a lawsuit, against the individual for a sum of money for damages against a group of citizens, commonly a city.

So, if citizens of a city were to go about suing other citizens who were parked on an expired meter for the sum equivalent to the amount of a parking violation, with the money collected paid to the city, would city judges automatically toss the cases and claim "you have no standing to sue, you are merely a citizen and not a city employee"?

[grampster]

BP,
     Very succinct treatise on answering the question posed.  I agree wholeheartedly with your views, for whatever that is worth.

[Tallpine]

"Society, on the other hand, frowns upon vigilantism because a vigilante is an individual, not statisitically representative of the consensus of the society. "


That's not precisely true in many cases, notably the "vigilance committees" of Montana and other places in the west.  Basically, a GROUP of folks got together and decided they weren't going to put up with this stuff anymore.  There definitely was a community consensus about what was acceptable and what was NOT (stealing livestock, robbing stagecoaches, etc).

Really, when you get down to the nitty-gritty, government itself is just a formalization and uniformation of the original vigilance committees.  Unfortunately, having acquired a monopoly on the use of force, government tends to care more about its own furtherance than on protecting the citizens from which it was formed.

The biggest argument that I know of against anarchy, is that it cannot exist for any length of time because folks will band together to establish some degree of order, if only in a local area.

[The Rabbi]

This statement's accuracy depends upon your definition of vigilantism. The agent of the government in the case of parking violations is not authorized by law to damage property, but to issue a ticket, in essence a lawsuit, against the individual for a sum of money for damages against a group of citizens, commonly a city.

So, if citizens of a city were to go about suing other citizens who were parked on an expired meter for the sum equivalent to the amount of a parking violation, with the money collected paid to the city, would city judges automatically toss the cases and claim "you have no standing to sue, you are merely a citizen and not a city employee"?

Then give a defintion of vigilantism.
A ticket is not a lawsuit.  A ticket is a notification of a violation of an ordinance.  THe private citizen has no standing to bring suit for this.  Even city employees have no standing to sue for this.  The meter maid is acting as an agent of the city.

The original post confuses a philosophical principle of government (in the Declaration) with the foundation of this government (the Constitution).  That is one of many errors.  It also confuses politically possible with moral.
It also confuses the individual actions of individual agents of the government with the government as a whole.
I could go on and on here.  Vigilantism is nothing more than anarchy by some other name.  Governments rightly suppress it.  The very few examples where it was justly instituted came when there was a total break down in government.  But one cannot extrapolate from the exception to the general.

[Art Eatman]

Rabbi, if you believe that rights can exist outside of any government, is it not true that the people delegate the right of "being let alone in their daily activities" to the government?  That is, the authority to enforce such a condition?

Isn't it really a division of labor thing?  That is, the idea of a cop on a beat is so you can work in your store, and don't have to walk your kids back and forth to school.  Heck, same deal for a crossing guard at a school.

If, all over town, the cops and crossing guards quit doing their jobs, who's left?

Back some thirty years ago in Santa Fe, NM, the cops--who by law couldn't go on strike for more pay--all called in with "Blue Flue".  No cops working around town.  The citizenry started a very widespread "Neighborhood Watch" effort, although not formalized by such a name.  Old Farts like me, sitting on front porches with shotguns.

Home burglaries ceased.  Quit.  Zilch.  Nada.  A reporter got a cop friend to set up an interview with a known burglar about why the burglaries had stopped.  The burglar explained, "The cops will only arrest you.  Those people out there will kill you."

There's a lesson there...

, Art

[The Rabbi]

Art, there is no right of "being left along."  I never heard of such a thing.  Government promulgates laws and then enforces them.  Living in peace is a default state that occurs in the absence of crime.
You posit a situation where government (or one significant part of it) ceased to work.  That wasnt the premise of the original post, which suggested that even if one cop failed to work a citizen could step in and do his job for him.
As for your scenario, you were not going around busting people.  You were protecting property/persons.  That isnt vigilantism.

[Werewolf]

The government of the USA was formed on the principle that the power of government is derived from the PEOPLE (its not - but for the sake of argument let's just assume that's still true).

Thus - by extension - the power of the agents of government is derived from the people.

If the agents of the government fail to do their jobs either thru corruption, inaction, incomptence or lack of resources it becomes incumbent upon the people to assume the tasks of the failed agents of said government.

Thus vigilantism is not only moral but in some - if not many - cases entirely necessary...

I lost count of the inaccuracies and logical fallacies here.
But the next time you see someone parked over time at a meter and the meter maid has failed to give them a ticket, blast their tires out.

Really? I'd be interested in what logical fallacies you lost track of since the train of thought seems pretty solid to me.

Of course if one believes that the people are actually servants to the government then the whole argument falls apart. In addition note that I said: "Thus vigilantism is not only moral but in some - if not many - cases entirely necessary" which clearly states that whether or not citizens take action is entirely situational. Your parking meter analogy, Rabbi, is entirely specious.

[The Rabbi]

Really? I'd be interested in what logical fallacies you lost track of since the train of thought seems pretty solid to me.

Of course if one believes that the people are actually servants to the government then the whole argument falls apart. In addition note that I said: "Thus vigilantism is not only moral but in some - if not many - cases entirely necessary" which clearly states that whether or not citizens take action is entirely situational. Your parking meter analogy, Rabbi, is entirely specious.

Actually if one believes almost anything other than "the government is an alien autonomous being designed solely to suppress people" then the argument falls apart.

But even this brief statement is shot through with inaccuracies.  "Whether or not citizens take action" is not an issue.  The basic premise of this is that citizens do take action outside of normal government/political channels.  That is the fundamental characteristic of vigilantism.
"Necessary"is not a proper adjunct to "moral."  Shopping is necessary, but not necessarily moral.  "Fidelity" might be moral, but not necessary. "Short selling" is not moral (or immoral) nor is it necessary.  I could go on and on.
The parking meter analogy in fact is perfect because it is the situation you describe, where an agent of the government fails to enforce the laws.

[Werewolf]

Actually if one believes almost anything other than "the government is an alien autonomous being designed solely to suppress people" then the argument falls apart.

Which seems to be our main point of contention as your previous arguments in this thread and others point to your seeming belief that the government is an autonomous construct designed solely to "control" the people. If one believes that then vigilantism is the very antithesis of what government stands for. Only when government fails to uphold it's end of the bargain with the people it exists for and fails to do the jobs it is contracted to do is it moral for the people to do the job for them.

"Whether or not citizens take action" is not an issue.  The basic premise of this is that citizens do take action outside of normal government/political channels.  That is the fundamental characteristic of vigilantism.

And that statement is further evidence of your belief that governmental power is not derived from the people but instead exists simply because it is the government. Sometimes citizens must act to protect and police themselves if the government does not - else anarchy would ensue (does Hurrican Kristina and the situation in New Orleans ring a bell - it got pretty nasty there for a while - some neighborhoods took care of themselves).

"Necessary"is not a proper adjunct to "moral."  Shopping is necessary, but not necessarily moral.  "Fidelity" might be moral, but not necessary. "Short selling" is not moral (or immoral) nor is it necessary.  I could go on and on.

I'll give you that one. Perhaps I should have been more specific and stated necessary when the established order is being seriously threatened as agreed upon by those whose lives or livelihoods are being threatened.

The parking meter analogy in fact is perfect because it is the situation you describe, where an agent of the government fails to enforce the laws.

A car parked on a street in a designated parking area that failed to pay a governmental tax is hardly an instrument that threatens a citizen's well being. Your example was specious IMO so on that point I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[The Rabbi]

Thank you for clarifying my beliefs about the function of government.  I thought they were different from what you described, about 180 degrees to be more exact, but now I understand I was mistaken.
In your original post you did not mention the qualification that there must exist a condition that "threatens a citizen's well-being."  That is a significant change.  It also contradicts your opening statement:

Only when government fails to uphold it's end of the bargain with the people it exists for and fails to do the jobs it is contracted to do is it moral for the people to do the job for them.

Again, I contract with the government (on your view) to keep the streets clean.  If I see someone toss a butt into the gutter then the gov't is obviously failing to do its job.  Can I detain him, or forcibly take the fine for littering from him? What if he is defecating in the street?  That could be construed as a threat to my well being.

[Guest]

The government of the USA was formed on the principle that the power of government is derived from the PEOPLE (its not - but for the sake of argument let's just assume that's still true).

Thus - by extension - the power of the agents of government is derived from the people.

If the agents of the government fail to do their jobs either thru corruption, inaction, incomptence or lack of resources it becomes incumbent upon the people to assume the tasks of the failed agents of said government.

Thus vigilantism is not only moral but in some - if not many - cases entirely necessary.

Which begs two questions?

1. Why is the government so loathe to allow the citizens it serves and from whom it's power is derived to pick up the slack when necessary?
2. Why are so many citizens so absolutely opposed to the people picking up the slack when necessary?

As in, the .Gov doesn't bother/care about keeping mexicans on THEIR side of the border, so its ok for civillians to pick up the slack??  

I can't see anything wrong with your logic in that light.

[The Rabbi]

[
As in, the .Gov doesn't bother/care about keeping mexicans on THEIR side of the border, so its ok for civillians to pick up the slack??  

I can't see anything wrong with your logic in that light.

I knew there was a smelly sub-text here somewhere.

[Werewolf]

The government of the USA was formed on the principle that the power of government is derived from the PEOPLE (its not - but for the sake of argument let's just assume that's still true).

Thus - by extension - the power of the agents of government is derived from the people.

If the agents of the government fail to do their jobs either thru corruption, inaction, incomptence or lack of resources it becomes incumbent upon the people to assume the tasks of the failed agents of said government.

Thus vigilantism is not only moral but in some - if not many - cases entirely necessary.

Which begs two questions?

1. Why is the government so loathe to allow the citizens it serves and from whom it's power is derived to pick up the slack when necessary?
2. Why are so many citizens so absolutely opposed to the people picking up the slack when necessary?

As in, the .Gov doesn't bother/care about keeping mexicans on THEIR side of the border, so its ok for civillians to pick up the slack??  

I can't see anything wrong with your logic in that light.

Ding - Ding! Give the man a CEEEEGAR!

I'm surprised it took so very long for someone to bring it up because that is the exact scenario I was thinking about in my original post. Started thinking about that after listening to a radio show on the way to work this morning. One thing led to another and it dawned on me that in some cases the people don't have any other choice than to act when their goverment can't or won't.

[grampster]

Matter of fact, a report on the tube today spelled out some research that was done regarding the so called vigilante's that volunteer to patrol the southern border.  It seems not only was illegal alien traffic down, but drug smuggling was also stultified.

Of course, the talking head went on to posit that the people and drugs were just being stockpiled till Minutemen go away.  (Can't put out good news can we...or perhaps the truth gets in the way of preconcieved notions)

I see this group of Minutemen, peacable citizens,  as a catalyst to get the government to do what it is supposed to do; protect out borders.  They are called vigilante's but appear to me to be far from that.

[Guest]

Hell Yeah, a stogie!

Thats what i thought you were getting at from the first post, but reading thru the thread made me think i had missed some big honkin subtle point.


Its a damned shame the government doesn't do their job,  and i wish there was something we could do to get everyone pissed about the border, but the media won't touch it.

[Art Eatman]

Rabbi, I used the phrase about being left alone in a broad sense; I used the store keeper as an example.  Left alone from rape, robbery, mayhem of whatever sort.  Isn't that what our laws are all about?  If people obey the law, interactions tend to be mutually voluntary.

If my Santa Fe example is merely of protecting property, what, then is the difference as regards the Minutement?  (Since that's been interjected...)

Again, in a broad sense:  If the duly constituted authorities do not do their specified jobs, and harm is occurring, who then is to end the harm?

Question:  If you know that the nearest LEO is forty miles away, and you see a felony in progress, is it vigilantism to stop the crime?  What is the morality if you turn away with, "It's not my job."?  Or, with, "I'm not authorized."?

Art

[Stand_watie]

Then give a defintion of vigilantism...

That is the whole point of my question. Vigilantism to some people may mean calling the police when they see a murder in progress. To others it may mean the neighborhood watch program. To others it may mean effecting a citizen's arrest upon people in the act of a crime. To others it may mean the Charles Bronson movies. To someone (somewhere) perhaps it means the right to shoot litterers. What you mean by the word is a basis that has to be laid before it can be judged if it's "moral" or not.

A ticket is a notification of a violation of an ordinance.  THe private citizen has no standing to bring suit for this.  Even city employees have no standing to sue for this.  The meter maid is acting as an agent of the city.

An oversimplification, I'll admit, but I got it from a law professor explaining the difference between the establishment of "preponderance of the evidence" burden of guilt that is found in a civil lawsuit trial between citizens with each other, and citizens with the state/county/city when presenting evidence to a magistrate of a civil traffic or code offense, and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that is applied to criminal trials. A meter maid does act as an agent of the city, but I'd say it would be up to the judge in every individual lawsuit to determine whether a private citizen has standing to sue.

Vigilantism is nothing more than anarchy by some other name.  Governments rightly suppress it.  The very few examples where it was justly instituted came when there was a total break down in government.  But one cannot extrapolate from the exception to the general.

Here we get back to definitions of vigilantism. Now that someone has laid out the parameters as an example being what the minutemen purport to be doing (not that I have evidence to the contrary, I just don't want to speak to the actions of or intentions of every single person there) on the border, I'd say both moral and legal.

[Stand_watie]

Question:  If you know that the nearest LEO is forty miles away, and you see a felony in progress, is it vigilantism to stop the crime?  What is the morality if you turn away with, "It's not my job."?  Or, with, "I'm not authorized."?Art

Do you know of any state where citizens are not authorized to prevent felonies or effect citizen's arrests? I'm not familiar with any, although I suppose NY and Cali are the likeliest suspects

[Art Eatman]

Before Bernie Getz and his subway shooting, "vigilantism" was used to mean one (or some) who seek out Bad Guys and take action in the absence of the old proverbial "duly constituted authority".  The ill repute came about from over-zealousness beyond any sort of reasonable and prudent behavior, in a mob-rule manner.  The best example is what followed the actions regarding the Plummer Gang in Montana in the late 1800s.

Still, the key to the whole deal is "in the absence" of any sort of governmental actions.  A dereliction of duty is the cause of citizen action.

The Vigilance Committee got rid of the crooked sheriff, but continued on and hanged people who were accused but not at all proven guilty.  This instituted a reign of terror that in practicality was no different from the terror caused by the banditry.  The whole deal inspired variants in many a Grade B Oater.

I guess my question had to do with today's societal view of those who act or would act in self-defense or the defense of a third party.  Possibly a correlative question would be, given my opinion of Soccer Moms and the anti-gun folks, would be, "Do the moral views of the anti-gunners have any relationship to reality?"  

I'd guess that most states have some sort of law "allowing" a person to prevent a felony...

[Matthew Carberry]

I always thought the vigilante line was only crossed after you've done a normal citizen duty of preventing the crime and apprehending the criminal.

At that point you lock 'em up (hold 'em anyway) and get the appropriate authority.

Vigilantism in my understanding starts only when, after the crime is stopped, you then execute a sentence for the crime.  That's when you are overstepping the bounds of law.

Example:

In the absence of a town sheriff, you and your neighbors can catch the rustlers and lock em in the pokey.   You don't get to hang them though, if there's any possibility of fetching Matt Dillon and having him take them into the Territorial Seat for trial by a judge.

The only time you'd get to execute sentence should be in the utter absence of any lawful authority and even then you should follow some form of legal process with which you are familiar.  (Witnesses, chance to speak, presentation of evidence to some sort of jury body, punishment fits the crime etc.)

[Guest]

1. Why is the government so loathe to allow the citizens it serves and from whom it's power is derived to pick up the slack when necessary?

Because the most important quality of a state is to exercise a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

2. Why are so many citizens so absolutely opposed to the people picking up the slack when necessary?

Because the state (school) trains them to think this way.

[Werewolf]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Mercedes GETS IT!