Proportionality

Purloined Chewing Gum


Fred chews gum. In fact, he loves to chew it and does so every day. He treasures his chewing gum.

One morning, John takes a stick of Fred's gum without permission. John and Fred are not well acquainted. Fred takes serious exception to John's violation of his property rights. Fred beats John soundly and with some severity, perhaps even killing John.

Is Fred justified in his response to John's action? The answer is, "it depends". It depends on the basic assumptions under which one labors when considering such questions.

Many people, perhaps very much most, would raise the idea of "proportionality". For a vast majority, beating someone for having taken a stick of gum without having first asked is not justified, much less killing for said cause. It is largely deemed "irrational". But is it? Let us take a somewhat deeper look.

What, exactly, defines "proportionality"?

Who gets to determine the standard that defines proportionality in an objective, objectively valid, and universally applicable way? Whence their authority to determine it for all men and foist it upon them? These are not rhetorical questions, nor are they in any way trivial or invalid. Not only are those questions central to the validity of the concept of proportionality, upon close examination one will find that they have no satisfactory answers.

Similarly, by what authority does one man get to judge the perceptions of another and deem them inadequate or even criminal and worthy of... what, exactly? Punishment? Imposition of judgment upon them? The taking of his property in some presumed act of equity and justice?

What is the objective standard by which all this presumably well-intended busy-bodying is justified?

The answer is: there is none. The concept of proportionality from the standpoint of objective validity is hopelessly unanswerable precisely because an objective and practicable definition is not possible.

What, then, is the valid basis of action where defense of property rights is concerned?

The ONLY salient fact where acts of defense are concerned is the fact that one human being has violated another; an act to which the former cannot validly claim as justly perpetrated against the latter.

Any purported absence of proportionality, even presuming that the notion has even the least shred of credibility, is at best a distant secondary consideration.

If A violates B, regardless of manner or degree, it is clear that B is within his rights to take action against A. Through the very act of violation, A places himself at risk, regardless of awareness or intent. In pure principle, in violating B, A has risked forfeiture of all he possesses, including his First Property (life).

In reality, people do not react with great extremity, save very rarely. Therefore, the "problem" really isn't. Thoughts to proportionality are of no practical importance in most situations. But if this is so, where rests the delineation between this and the cases where proportionality is justly mandated?

The notion of proportionality, once accepted as valid, establishes a slippery slope. By small increments does that slope find itself becoming steeper and more generously slathered with ever better lubricant. This is what human beings do, our histories overwhelmingly lousy with examples. How does one think we humans have gone from our ancient anarchist roots, to our currently deplorable state of government-imposed, arbitrary, and capricious restriction upon our rightful prerogatives to act? It did not happen over night, but rather by small incremental, creeping motions away from freedom, toward restriction in usurpation of the rightful claims of every man to act.

Consider further the more extreme case where one's life is placed in immediate danger of destruction at the hands of another. How easy it is in the comfortable, time-flush, and safety-rich environment of a prosecutor's office chair to judge the "proportionality" of another man's acts of self-defense, enjoying the advantages that were unavailable to those forced into make what were likely a split-second decisions, their very lives riding on next choices?

Every day there is some chiseler in a cheap suit presuming to stand in judgment of the "proportionality" of another's actions, absent an objectively measured standard not only by which to judge the validity of another man's acts, but to justify it before the public. Given this, ought the concept of proportionality not come under strict scrutiny?

The foremost and perhaps only consideration in cases of a man acting in defense of his rightful property is the initial violation perpetrated against him by another. No man holds the least authority to violate the rights of another, no matter the degree, absent violation by that other. The concept of proportionality, imposed upon others under color of just authority, introduces the notion of degree in such a manner that potentially erases all authority of the individual to act within the metes and bounds of his inborn, autonomous right. The very definition of "proportionality" may be altered in whatever manner and degree deemed desirable or "necessary" by those who presume to lord over the rest, whether it be kings, legislatures, or what have you.

History readily demonstrates that such standards tend to be arbitrary in the best cases, and intentionally, viciously malevolent in the worse. The false onus of proportionality places our very lives in jeopardy through invalid obligations that leave men without the freedom to act spontaneously and with the knowledge that they will safe from the capricious responses of his fellows under false authority. In dire situations, such reservations and the hesitations that arise therefrom can cost a men their lives. Is it not bad enough that a man is forced to act in defense of his very life? Is there any just cause to further burden him with having to worry whether his choice of response to a threat to life and limb will earn him a prison term and possibly the financial destitution of those whom he loves?

This imposition of the false standard of proportionality constitutes a gross and criminal violation of the rights of all men. It is, in fact, a deep, gross, and insidious violation of the much touted NAP†, wrapped in a false narrative of just limitation of the rightful prerogatives of free men pursuant to "justice". It would be laughable, were it not for the destruction heaped upon righteous men for their purported failures to respond "proportionally" to crimes acknowledged to have been committed against them.

Furthermore, even for "lesser" violations of one man by another, the ultimate right of destruction of the violator remains a valid claim for those violated. Consider unamended violations, where the violator refuses or otherwise fails to make amends for his crime, regardless of how trivial someone might regard it. If the violator is allowed to escape without consequence, then the rights of all men have been ceded in principle. If one may get away with X, then what in principle invalidates his claim to the right to commit Y without consequence? Upon what basis do we justify the effective allowance of one violation while denying another?

John steals a piece of Fred's chewing gum and the latter decides to take great exception to the act for reasons his own. Fred demands John make him whole, but John steadfastly refuses. Is Fred ultimately entitled to John's life? I say he is, for if he is not, then an arbitrary line has been drawn between "yea" and "nay", the position of which is equally arbitrary. Once that has been established as an accepted (by whom???) precedent, ANYTHING is possible in terms of moving that line such that a man can be required to hand his very life over to another on demand, as is the case in principle in the UK where any morally valid act of self defense is likely to earn the defender a stint in prison pursuant to the arbitrary and grossly unjust "laws" of that land.

The concept of proportionality looks good on cheap paper, written in large scrawl with crayons of bright and pretty colors. However, once one breaks out the scalpels in scrutiny of the idea, problems begin to show, as we see.

Proportionality is an emotion-driven fallacy that provides tyrants a toehold by which their usurpations are falsely, yet compellingly, justified and by which the lives of men thereby stand perpetually in ruin's shadow.

Therefore, it is my gentle and respectful recommendation that you give these ideas their due consideration with the requisite diligence and open mind. If you ever find yourself discharging the duties of a juror, reject all assertions of proportionality as a justification of prosecution, for it is a false basis.

As always, please accept my best wishes.

Warrior Philosophers

Greetings once again, my fellow spirits.

I saw a post on a social media's site just a moment ago that cited a quote from Thucydides that goes thusly:

"The society that separats its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."


The propriety of it prompted the following response.

It is agreeable. The classic notion of the warrior philosopher denotes the ultimate warrior. Why? Because the intimation that he is a philosopher implies he thinks for himself and in the cultural context in which I assume it was made, I must further assume it also carried the implication of being a moral and courageous man. Those are the men we need in uniform, so to speak; men who will say "no!" to orders immoral.  We need as many of these as possible, the ideal proportion being 100%.

Police, for example, are not such men. They almost universally obey blindly.  On the few occasions we read about a cop bucking the status quo, bad things happen thereafter to he who showed such temerity.  The "system" does not tolerate those who rock the boat.  It has a long memory, and is not at all forgiving.

If somewhere a charismatic "leader" rose, and in the wake of his hand-waving tirades a fever spiked in his subjects such that all people of X-persuasion were to be separated and somehow made eighth-class properties of the "crown", you had better bet that there would be someone enforcing the edict with single-minded and likely vicious devotion, police being the candidates topping the list.  Barring them, there are always others willing to answer the call.

It doesn't matter who the target group might be - perhaps we could return to old reliables such as blacks and Jews. More likely these days, it would be white males. Someone, I guaRONtee, would blindly accede to whatever orders were issued. Round `em up! And if the orders ultimately crowned in "kill them all", there would always be those willing to press that gore-laden labor. History has demonstrated the willingness of men to engage in acts of mass murder, given the right incentive.

This is not likely possible with a body of warrior philosophers because they would not only understand the gross impropriety of such orders - the very criminality - but would have the courage and motivation to refuse them and, if necessary, air out and neutralize the sources.

That is what humanity needs. We don't need charismatic "leaders". We don't need leaders at all, save that every man be the leader of his own life. We need men courageous and loving enough of themselves and their fellows to do the occasionally ugly work required to maintain the state of freedom not only for themselves, but for all men.

Rottenness is a fact of humanity. There will always will be men who fail to abide by the principles of Proper Human Relations, whatever the reasons. Such men need to be excised from the company of their fellows, whether by killing them or through exile and forced containment, if the freedom of men is to be protected in perpetuity. It is ugly work - no decent man wants to do such things to another. He takes no whit of pleasure in it, yet may still derive an appropriate sense of satisfaction in having justly and with correct basis protected the fundamental rights of all men, for in neutralizing one transgressor's acts of trespass, he saves all others, for the doom of the humanity begins with the first failure to protect. This is part of the price of being a Freeman.

Observe how we fully as have failed at this, allowing vicious tyrants of all stripe to commit their atrocities without sufficient answer. Because we are moral cowards, unwilling to engage in the repugnant business of maintaining the proper order between all men, which is to say the state of mutually respectful freedom, insanity and tragedy ride roughshod across the face of the globe, the conditions they set having become the rule rather than the exception.

We shrink from enlightened self-interest because of our natural distaste for that which is clearly distasteful.  Such disinclination says good things of us, but our failure to command over it where necessary indicts us with far greater rebuke.  There are those times where the repellent act proves necessary if we are to preserve our birthright freedoms and not devolve into the chaos we now find in nearly every corner, nook, and cranny of the world.

You have failed and I, shamefully, have done no better.

Courage is not enough. Intellect fit for the task of being a Freeman, a protector and guardian of all humanity from the predations of transgressors upon the common rights of all people, is an absolute necessity, as well as the smarts that come with training.  Absent the right knowledge, how can any man know what to do in a given situation? Without knowledge, children drink poison in their innocence and good men allow themselves and others to be abused and ruined by thoses who may do so with intentions fair or foul.

Freedom proper, equal, and respectful to, and of all men, demands everything of the individual. It is hard work that requires devotion, charity, love, trust, vigilance, grace, and courage. It demands all that men can give, and then a smidge more. That is why we run from it; it is simply too much work for the Meaner - the average man - who rathers the false convenience, economy, and comfort of idle entropy, usually in the form of going along to get along.  Sadder still, we pick and choose the elements of our individual visions of "freedom", that which I call "Pretty Slavery", and stencil "freedom" upon its forehead.  

Look what it has gotten us. We live in Hell, the gut-wrenching tragedy of it being not only that none of it is necessary, but trebly so, given the grace and love and beauty of spirit of which we are capable and so often demonstrate in other ways. Choosing horror over love for no other reason than we are too lazy or fearful to lift a finger to choose otherwise reveals our most terrible flaws.

I do not know the proper solution for all this, the measures that might serve to correct our doleful state, but the cultivation Warrior Philosophers must, in my opinion, be part of it.  It is not clear that such an endeavor may be realized in any manner beyond the theoretical in numbers sufficient to address this deep breech of nature.

In principle, the path forward is clear and simple.  In practice, it is the same, and yet statistical reality of mens' minds nevertheless reveals the low likelihood of such solutions' potentials for successful attainment.  Our minds build our reality and we appear bent on clinging to the evils which, having become so familiar to us, have become comfortable regardless of the horrors they bring.

Please forgive the dark mood of the subject, but I believe it needs to be aired in the slim hope that it will set people to thinking.

Thank you for your time and attention, and as always please accept my best wishes.