Libertarianism and Blackmail

[1000-points-of-fright]

Is blackmail a crime under libertarianism? Should it be a crime at all?

[pcosmar]

Blackmail


1: a tribute anciently exacted on the Scottish border by plundering chiefs in exchange for immunity from pillage2 a: extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution b: the payment that is extorted

Is there any reason it should be?
Or are you looking for some justification?

[Ex Post Facto]

I would have to say yes as you would be attempting to impose your will on someone else. I think it would be approached under the authority of Fraud, or Pursuit of Happiness as far as government justifying the need to regulate it.

[Truth Warrior]

Usually almost all questions about libertarianism can be answered by a full and complete understanding of the Non-Aggression Principle.<IMHO>

[1000-points-of-fright]

Just wondering why it can't be considered a free market transaction between two people.

Let's say you have a photograph of an anti-gay preacher blowing some guy. Nothing illegal, just embarrassing. Why is it illegal for him to pay you to suppress it, but perfectly legal for you to sell it to a tabloid to publish?

He has a choice... pay or be embarrassed. Just like any other commodity. Hungry? Buy food or starve.

[Truth Warrior]

Just wondering why it can't be considered a free market transaction between two people.

Let's say you have a photograph of an anti-gay preacher blowing some guy. Nothing illegal, just embarrassing. Why is it illegal for him to pay you to suppress it, but perfectly legal for you to sell it to a tabloid to publish?

He has a choice... pay or be embarrassed. Just like any other commodity. Hungry? Buy food or starve.

Sorry! Not a fan of hypotheticals. LEARN the principle. ;)

[pcosmar]

Just wondering why it can't be considered a free market transaction between two people.

Let's say you have a photograph of an anti-gay preacher blowing some guy. Nothing illegal, just embarrassing. Why is it illegal for him to pay you to suppress it, but perfectly legal for you to sell it to a tabloid to publish?

He has a choice... pay or be embarrassed. Just like any other commodity. Hungry? Buy food or starve.

If it was a simple transaction, but you are implying a threat.
Extortion
Coercion
Threats

This sounds a lot like aggression to me.
Perhaps you need to check your moral compass. ;)

[Ex Post Facto]

I think Libertarian ideas get confused with Anarchist ideas. There is a proper role of government to protect people in a Libertarian society. One of those functions of government would be to make sure your citizens could carry out their life without someone interfering.

[Truth Warrior]

I think Libertarian ideas get confused with Anarchist ideas. There is a proper role of government to protect people in a Libertarian society. One of those functions of government would be to make sure your citizens could carry out their life without someone interfering. Except for the barbaric aggressive governments that is. :D

[1000-points-of-fright]

This sounds a lot like aggression to me.
Perhaps you need to check your moral compass. ;)

So you must believe that under a libertarian system it would be illegal to sell the photo to a newspaper because that would be equally aggressive.


Sorry! Not a fan of hypotheticals. ;)

Then don't get involved in hypothetical discussions.

[pcosmar]

So you must believe that under a libertarian system it would be illegal to sell the photo to a newspaper because that would be equally aggressive.


.

I didn't say that.
If you had a picture( news, current events , or expose) and sold it to a publisher, that is a transaction between you and the publisher.
However, that was not the scenario you described.
You presented a case of threatening an individual to extort money from them.
Two different things.

[Josh_LA]

Just wondering why it can't be considered a free market transaction between two people.



a threat is not a free transaction, or it'd be called an agreement.

[Josh_LA]

So you must believe that under a libertarian system it would be illegal to sell the photo to a newspaper because that would be equally aggressive.


while I am not a libertarian, if the photo was taken by violation of privacy, that's already an issue in and of itself, not as simple as free speech.

[1000-points-of-fright]

a threat is not a free transaction, or it'd be called an agreement.

OK, assuming there was no violation of privacy. The subject was just careless. What constitutes a threat? Is the following scenario coercive?

You: "Hey, Preacher Bob. I've got this photo of you blowing some dude. I'll sell it to ya for $500."

Preacher Bob: "No way."

You: "Ok. See ya." Then you proceed to sell it to a newspaper that is willing to pay the price.

After declining to buy it, it's none of Bob's business what you do with it as it is not Bob's property and you never threatened him. You just made an offer and he declined.

I'm just trying to find the line between coercion/aggression and free transaction.

[pcosmar]

I'm just trying to find the line between coercion/aggression and free transaction.

See posted definition.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I didn't say that.
If you had a picture( news, current events , or expose) and sold it to a publisher, that is a transaction between you and the publisher.
However, that was not the scenario you described.
You presented a case of threatening an individual to extort money from them.
Two different things.

But selling the photo to a publisher causes harm to the individual in question. Is that not aggression?

[Truth Warrior]

Then don't get involved in hypothetical discussions. Uhhhh, I think that's what I didn't. :D

Reality just too boring for you, so ya just gotta make stuff up? :rolleyes:

[pcosmar]

But selling the photo to a publisher causes harm to the individual in question. Is that not aggression?

Please stick to the original question. ie blackmail,, threatening someone for monetary gain.

You seem to be trying to justify what you already understand is essentially wrong.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm just having a discussion here.

Let's try this... what's the difference between blackmail and having damaging information for sale? Does it all depend on who buys it?

[Josh_LA]

OK, assuming there was no violation of privacy. The subject was just careless. What constitutes a threat? Is the following scenario coercive?

You: "Hey, Preacher Bob. I've got this photo of you blowing some dude. I'll sell it to ya for $500."

Preacher Bob: "No way."

You: "Ok. See ya." Then you proceed to sell it to a newspaper that is willing to pay the price.

After declining to buy it, it's none of Bob's business what you do with it as it is not Bob's property and you never threatened him. You just made an offer and he declined.

I'm just trying to find the line between coercion/aggression and free transaction.

if there was no violation of privacy, then yes, you have absolute free speech and you can name the price, it's his fault for letting you take the photo. (and he still has the option to kill you if he doesn't respect your rights).

[constituent]

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm just having a discussion here.

Let's try this... what's the difference between blackmail and having damaging information for sale? Does it all depend on who buys it?

you'd have to ask a judge, though depending on your motives (in your example, to damage someone's reputation) i think it'd all come down to intent and how you came across the info. or whatever.

Though my libertarian solution is something different altogether.

[Truth Warrior]

The Libertarian Axiom (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/block1.html)

[Josh_LA]

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm just having a discussion here.

Let's try this... what's the difference between blackmail and having damaging information for sale? Does it all depend on who buys it?

no it does not depend on who buys it.

whatever info is out in the open is worthless, whatever information that's of worth is probably illegal. So that's where tabloid comes in, they stalk, but don't violate privacy, so celebrities have nobody to blame. A person has every right and obligation to protect his own image by his own actions.

there's no difference between threat and selling incriminating info, whatever a person finds is a threat, is a threat.

[pcosmar]

damaging information

What, like evidence of a crime? and I mean real crime, someone that is harming others. It would be a civic duty to report that.
If you are talking a personal indiscretion, and something that would harm only that person, then what is your motivation to cause them harm.

As i said before, you may want to check your own moral compass.

[Josh_LA]

you'd have to ask a judge, though depending on your motives (in your example, to damage someone's reputation) i think it'd all come down to intent and how you came across the info. or whatever.

Though my libertarian solution is something different altogether.

if a person made a mistake or embarassing move in public, the damage was already done (by himself), it's not your fault you were lucky enough to capture it, it's HIS responsibility to be careful not to embarass himself.

if you violated privacy, that's already outright criminal, violating privacy and then threatening is no different than stealing property and selling it back to them.

[Josh_LA]

What, like evidence of a crime? and I mean real crime, someone that is harming others. It would be a civic duty to report that.
If you are talking a personal indiscretion, and something that would harm only that person, then what is your motivation to cause them harm.

As i said before, you may want to check your own moral compass.

yes, and if somebody did something he's embarassed about or can be in prison for, it's not my fault I landed on it and can help him protect himself. It's still a threat, but only because HE did what he's afraid to admit first. If he was proud of being a criminal and happy to go to prison, I'd have no leverage on him whatsoever.

[Truth Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extortion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extortion)

[1000-points-of-fright]

The Libertarian Axiom (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/block1.html)

Yeah great. Answer this.

A has damaging factual information about B. A sells this info to C who proceeds to publish it thereby damaging B's reputation.

The purpose was not to damage C but to make a buck. Aggression or not?

[Josh_LA]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extortion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extortion)

I'm starting to think you have an interest in linking dictionary.reference.com for ad revenue, seeing that's all you ever say now.

[Josh_LA]

Yeah great. Answer this.

A has damaging factual information about B. A sells this info to C who proceeds to publish it thereby damaging B's reputation.

The purpose was not to damage C but to make a buck. Aggression or not?

How did A get the info on B?

That's where the aggression matters.

We already know making a buck is the easy motive.

[Truth Warrior]

I'm starting to think you have an interest in linking dictionary.reference.com for ad revenue, seeing that's all you ever say now. No. And that's certainly a gross and bogus overstatement.

[pcosmar]

Yeah great. Answer this.

A has damaging factual information about B. A sells this info to C who proceeds to publish it thereby damaging B's reputation.

The purpose was not to damage C but to make a buck. Aggression or not?

There it comes back to your own moral compass.
Personally I would prefer to "make a buck" by producing something or providing a service.
Ratting someone out to make a buck would go against my nature.

but that is me.
your face is the one looking back from your mirror.

[1000-points-of-fright]

What, like evidence of a crime? and I mean real crime, someone that is harming others. It would be a civic duty to report that.
If you are talking a personal indiscretion, and something that would harm only that person, then what is your motivation to cause them harm.

As I said before, you may want to check your own moral compass.

As I said in the first post, nothing illegal just embarrassing. Otherwise, you get into the whole "failure to report a crime" thing which opens up another can of worms. Would there be such a crime as "failure to report a crime" in a libertarian system? But that's for a whole other thread. And no crime was committed acquiring the info. Just carelessness on one part and luck on the the other.

The motivation is not to cause harm. The motivation is to make money by selling the information.


There it comes back to your own moral compass.
Personally I would prefer to "make a buck" by producing something or providing a service.
Ratting someone out to make a buck would go against my nature.

but that is me.
your face is the one looking back from your mirror.

Your moral compass and your nature has nothing to do with legality.

[idiom]

If you publish it then you have to pay him whatever fee he wants for the copyright of his image.

[pcosmar]

Your moral compass and your nature has nothing to do with legality.

You are absolutely right. :p

[1000-points-of-fright]

No. And that's certainly a gross and bogus overstatement.

You are a gross and bogus overstatement. Have you seen your post count lately?:p

[danberkeley]

I was gonna link to Block but TW beat me to it. Anyway, Defending the Undefendable by Walter Block is a great book that deals with this issue.

[Truth Warrior]

You are a gross and bogus overstatement. Have you seen your post count lately?:p I just really always love getting the recurring adolescent middle school PE class "post count" envy. "Mine's bigger than your's. NYAH, NYAH, NAYH, NYAH, NYAH". :p :rolleyes:

[1000-points-of-fright]

C'mon, that was funny. Overstatement. You have almost 16,000 posts. See what I did there?

Take the truth stick out of your ass.

[Truth Warrior]

I was gonna link to Block but TW beat me to it. Anyway, Defending the Undefendable by Walter Block is a great book that deals with this issue. I'll give you partial credit. :)

[Truth Warrior]

C'mon, that was funny. Overstatement. You have almost 16,000 posts. See what I did there?

Take the truth stick out of your ass. Yes Cornelius, I see. :rolleyes: Care for a banana?