“She looked out at the country. She had been aware for some time of the human figures that flashed with an odd regularity at the side of the track. But they went by so fast that she could not grasp their meaning until, like the squares of a movie film, brief flashes blended into a whole and she understood it. She had had the track guarded since its completion, but she had not hired the human chain she saw strung out along the right-of-way. A solitary figure stood at every mile post. Some were young schoolboys, others were so old that the silhouettes of their bodies looked bent against the sky. All of them were armed, with anything they had found, from costly rifles to ancient muskets. All of them wore railroad caps. They were the sons of Taggart employees, and old railroad men who had retired after a full lifetime of Taggart service. They had come, unsummoned, to guard this train. As the engine went past him, every man in his turn stood erect, at attention, and raised his gun in a military salute.” (Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged: (Centennial Edition) (p. 242). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition, emphasis added. )
I was rather surprised with the negative reaction some people closely associated with the Ayn Rand Institute had for Kyle Rittenhouse, back when the story of his self-defense shooting first came out last year. I watched a great deal of the videos of the shooting and events leading up to it, and was fairly confident he had acted in self-defense. Most of the criticism coming out of Objectivist circles seemed to center around the fact that Rittenhouse went to Kenosha, Wisconsin, and, in some sense, “put himself” into danger, such that he had to shoot three people.
In my experience, the people associated with the Ayn Rand Institute have an aversion to guns, in general. My perception is they will “grudgingly” acknowledge some right to keep and bear arms, but many of them clearly have a distaste for guns. This may have to do with their cultural backgrounds. Most ARI people appear to be from the north-eastern United States, California, or foreign countries. They aren’t used to armed civilians. I don’t particularly hold this against them, but I think it plays into their perception of self-defensive shootings, like the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.
Is it wrong to go someplace where there is lawlessness and defend property? Certainly Ayn Rand must have thought there is some such right in certain circumstances, or she wouldn’t have had the teenage sons of Taggart Transcontinental Railroad employees guarding the tracks of the John Galt Line. (This situation is, admittedly, a little different from that of Kyle Rittenhouse, since he appears to have had little association with the property he was defending. More on that, later.)
Is Kyle Rittenhouse a vigilante? Perhaps. Is that wrong?
What is a “vigilante”? An online source says it is:
“A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.” (https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZLBR&pc=MOZI&q=define+vigilante)
Is Vigilantism always unacceptable? I am not convinced of that. When the legal system breaks down in an emergency, extraordinary actions can be taken to defend life and property. In essence, a riot is an emergency return to a state in which there is no government. A state of anarchy is a form of tyranny:
“Tyranny is any political system (whether absolute monarchy or fascism or communism) that does not recognize individual rights (which necessarily include property rights). The overthrow of a political system by force is justified only when it is directed against tyranny: it is an act of self-defense against those who rule by force. For example, the American Revolution. The resort to force, not in defense, but in violation, of individual rights, can have no moral justification; it is not a revolution, but gang warfare.” (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/revolution_vs_putsch.html )
During a riot, what a rational person faces is the abrogation of law, which means the abrogation of the state’s protection of individual rights. In such circumstances, one faces not tyranny by the state, but tyranny by a gang of criminals. In such an emergency, one can take extraordinary measures to defend one’s life and property. That said, I think that once order is restored, one must also be prepared to face trial for any excessive force used under the circumstances. (But, what is “excessive” under those circumstances is probably also different.)
I do not think Kyle Rittenhouse could be described as a “vigilante”, because Kenosha was in a state of anarchic tyranny. But, if one insists on calling him a “vigilante”, then, during an emergency, vigilantism, within certain limits, is probably justified.
Was there no police support for what Kyle Rittenhouse was doing?
There does appear to have been actual police support for Kyle Rittenhouse and the others in his group, at least amongst the “rank and file” cops. Those cops made no effort to remove Rittenhouse or the group he was with, and gave them water and verbal support:
“‘About 90 minutes into the livestream at 11:30 p.m. — 15 minutes before the fatal shooting — the following exchange with police occurs as Rittenhouse and another armed man walk outside a business.
Police officer (over a loudspeaker): ‘You need water? Seriously. (unintelligible) You need water?’
Rittenhouse, raising his arm and walking toward the police vehicle: ‘We need water.’
Police officer: ‘We’ll throw you one.’
Rittenhouse then walks out into the street amid several police vehicles, holding his hand in the air for a water bottle. An officer surfaces from a hatch at the top of the police vehicle and tosses a water bottle to a person located just out of the camera’s view, where Rittenhouse would likely be standing based on the preceding footage.
Police officer: ‘We got a couple. We’ve got to save a couple, but we’ll give you a couple. We appreciate you guys, we really do.‘”
(https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/29/fact-check-video-police-thanked-kyle-rittenhouse-gave-him-water/5661804002/)
How would I describe Kyle Rittenhouse?
“‘Don’t be shocked, Miss Taggart,’ said Danneskjöld. ‘And don’t object. I’m used to objections. I’m a sort of freak here, anyway. None of them approve of my particular method of fighting our battle. John doesn’t, Dr. Akston doesn’t. They think that my life is too valuable for it. But, you see, my father was a bishop— and of all his teachings there was only one sentence that I accepted: ‘All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.’….Even John grants me that in our age I had the moral right to choose the course I’ve chosen. I am doing just what he is doing— only in my own way.…'” (Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged: (Centennial Edition) (p. 757). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.)
I wouldn’t recommend that anyone do what Kyle Rittenhouse did. Furthermore, I discourage it. I would not go into the middle of a riot to defend the property of strangers, and I wouldn’t recommend that anyone else do it. That said, John Galt didn’t think Ragnar Danneskjold should attack the relief ships for the “people’s states” of Europe, but he didn’t condemn Ragnar for it. He said Ragnar had a right to do what he was doing, but he didn’t think it was, in some sense, “prudent”. That is my position on Kyle Rittenhouse going to a riot to defend the property of others. He had the right, but it was, in a word, “quixotic“:
“Exceedingly idealistic; unrealistic and impractical.”
https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZLBR&pc=MOZI&q=quixotic
My perspective as a forty-seven-year-old is different from that of a seventeen-year-old, however. Young men can be so committed to doing good that they may act rashly or imprudently. I cannot say for certain I wouldn’t have done the same when I was a teenager. As such, I will never speak ill of Kyle Rittenhouse.
[Note: If you found this blog post of value, please consider a gratuity. Give whatever amount you think the post was worth. (Please do not send me money if you know me off the Internet.) http://deancook.net/donate/]
