Is a Man's Reputation His Property?

[helmuth_hubener]

In another thread, we got off-topic and started talking about this issue. So here is a thread to discuss it more.

Pericles got things started with this post:

I find this amusing because I find one of the internal conflicts of Rothbard's work on display here. The notion that the free market helps makes contracts self enforcing by reputational risk of people who acquire a reputation of breaking contracts are less desirable as players in the free market - so people will honor contracts to maintain good reputations. Thus, one might assume that reputations are valuable, and a libel does harm to someone by harming his reputation. But, Rothbard does not want to go there due to the possibility of libel laws and the conflict of my thoughts and words belong to me, so he says he pays no attention to reputation on the assumption that everybody lies about everybody else in order to obtain competitive advantage.

Ron Paul's reputation is either valuable or it isn't - which?

~~~

To which I replied:


Ron Paul's reputation is either valuable or it isn't - which? His reputation consists of thoughts in other people's heads. This reputation is valuable to him, definitely. But it is not his property. The thoughts of the millions of people which make up his reputation belong to the respective heads in which they reside.

~~~

The conversation continued:


that is one view but I believe a contrary view, that one works for one's good name as hard as one works to build anything else in life, and you create a property both valuable and damageable, and Ron Paul worked harder to build a good name than did most. Let's go with your idea, then. Let's see what it means. So, let's say I have a right to my reputation. It's my property. You can't go around destroying my property without my permission.

OK. So if a real property right exists, then it should be enforced/defended. How is a property right in other people's thoughts defended? Force them to think different thoughts. That's the only way I can think of.

So if there is a group of people which are systematically violating my rights by ceasing to think favorable thoughts about me and instead thinking unfavorable thoughts, then I have the right to make them stop, and maybe also to punish them somehow, make them pay me retribution. After all, they are destroying my property.

This seems to be the logical conclusion of saying that one literally has a property right in his reputation. If that's literally true, then that means that one owns the thoughts of other people. He owns their brains, that is. He has the right to go into their brains and root out the bad thoughts and perpetuate the good thoughts, just as he has the right to weed his backyard and plant a garden on it. His backyard spaces, other people's brains, it's all the same, it's all his property. He can do whatever he wants with them. Right?

~~~

And continued:


What it does do is give you recourse if someone runs around telling scurrilous lies about you. In what way has aggression been committed against me if someone runs around telling scurrilous lies about me?


Brain, no. Mouth, yes. Are you sure? What if the culprit's mouth is saying these scurrilous lies to an empty room? If no one hears, has there still, technically, been a violation of my property rights? I mean, for practical purposes, I might not find out about it and so he won't be prosecuted, but has he violated my rights if no one listened?

If not, is it maybe the listening that causes the rights violation? If there is no one hearing and processing the information with his brain, then no harm, no foul? Then that comes back to owning brains again. Or, here's an alternative: Perhaps it must be that I own other people's conversations, and thus am allowed to police them for content. Is that what you're saying? I own the conversations?

~~~

And wound up here:


It means different things in different contexts, however, I do believe that you build your reputation with your actions and have created something protectable that you should be able to defend from false aspersions knowingly or recklessly spread (not thoughts). If I am wrong, tell me what is right.

[presence]

How is a property right in other people's thoughts defended?

libel, slander, defamation?

[jj-]

If one stops and thinks about it, the idea that reputation is property is laughable.

[acptulsa]

If I am wrong, tell me what is right.

I don't know if you're right or wrong. You ducked the question.

A corporation is able to put a dollar value on its reputation, if its a good reputation. They don't engage in thought control in order to have a reputation. But they are liable to go after someone who lies about them, in order to protect that reputation from undeserved harm. And this is something you can do as well--unless you're in politics.

Now, if you think you can do anything more to build your reputation than protect it from sabotage and be as honorable and fair in your dealings as possible, you're wrong. Or, at least, I can't think of anything more.

So, I don't know if you're right or wrong. But I do know you're silly. The new Thought Police isn't there to protect your reputation. The new Thought Police is there to arrest you for being a terrorist.


If not, is it maybe the listening that causes the rights violation? If there is no one hearing and processing the information with his brain, then no harm, no foul? Then that comes back to owning brains again. Or, here's an alternative: Perhaps it must be that I own other people's conversations, and thus am allowed to police them for content. Is that what you're saying? I own the conversations?

Correct on no harm, no foul. I've never heard of a libel or slander law that did not have a clause to that effect. And if you think you own the conversations of others, go to the bar and tell everyone that you demand they talk about the Cubs.

That should keep you out of our hair right up until you run out of teeth.

[heavenlyboy34]

Someone link to the chapters on lible and slander in "Defending The Undefendable"! :) quick
ETA: page 47 here: http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf

[american.swan]

Stupid bs reputation is property in SKorea AND it's not a civil case. It can involve jail time.

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't know if you're right or wrong. You ducked the question. Well I don't want to be ducking questions. What question did I duck? It was quite unintentional. Please let me know so I can correct this.

[sailingaway]

If one stops and thinks about it, the idea that reputation is property is laughable.

I disagree if you think of it as representation of fact about a person and not thoughts contained in someone's head. I agree thoughts should not be restrained.

[oyarde]

My reputation in my community probably does hold some value.Do I really care what others think ? No. So , yes and no :)

[helmuth_hubener]

libel, slander, defamation? So how does that work? And is it based on a sound footing of respect for property rights? Does this "libel, slander, defamation" respect everyone's property?

[helmuth_hubener]

I disagree if you think of it as representation of fact about a person and not thoughts contained in someone's head. I agree thoughts should not be restrained. So how can one change facts about a person? If it's the facts I have a right to, how can anyone deprive me of them?

[sailingaway]

So how can one change facts about a person? If it's the facts I have a right to, how can anyone deprive me of them?

If people misrepresent the facts they deprive you of the enjoyment of your property.

[acptulsa]

So how does that work? And is it based on a sound footing of respect for property rights? Does this "libel, slander, defamation" respect everyone's property?

That explains why you didn't answer the question. You don't know the answer to the question.

In the U.S. libel slander and defamation is allowed unchecked in politics but not in other aspects of life. Deliberate falsehoods shown to cause someone who is not in politics material harm is actionable in a court of law. If you want to know more, you should probably go to law school.

[anaconda]

If one stops and thinks about it, the idea that reputation is property is laughable.

+Reputation.

[jj-]

I disagree if you think of it as representation of fact about a person and not thoughts contained in someone's head. I agree thoughts should not be restrained.

That's a freedom of speech issue. Incorrect speech should be combated with accurate speech.

[helmuth_hubener]

If people misrepresent the facts they deprive you of the enjoyment of your property.But the facts themselves remain true. They can't take that away from me. The facts are the facts.

So what I actually own, in your view, is people's perception of the facts. Is that right?

[sailingaway]

That's a freedom of speech issue. Incorrect speech should be combated with accurate speech.

Incorrect speech to damage a person that is false or reckless about truth imho should be actionable by the person being lied about.

[sailingaway]

But the facts themselves remain true. They can't take that away from me. So what I actually own, in your view, is people's perception of the facts. Is that right?


It is the FALSE AND INSULTING EXPRESSION which can be expected to change perceptions, not the perceptions themselves.

[helmuth_hubener]

That explains why you didn't answer the question. You don't know the answer to the question.acptulsa, seriously, what is your question?

[jj-]

Incorrect speech to damage a person that is false or reckless about truth imho should be actionable by the person being lied about.

It damages the person, and indirectly, only if other people are idiots and believe something without evidence. It's a very bad assumption to write legislation assuming people are idiots. That's how authoritarianism and the nanny state are justified.

[noneedtoaggress]

It is the FALSE AND INSULTING EXPRESSION which can be expected to change perceptions, not the perceptions themselves.

Hey guys, I heard sailingaway was a democratic socialist.

[jj-]

..

[noneedtoaggress]

He's a plant. Obviously. A shill for the empire.

[sailingaway]

Hey guys, I heard sailingaway was a democratic socialist.

Demagoguery?

[noneedtoaggress]

Maybe he's CIA.

[noneedtoaggress]

Demagoguery?

See he's trying to divide us!!!!

[sailingaway]

I keep looking for a substantive response, but see none.

[helmuth_hubener]

It is the FALSE AND INSULTING EXPRESSION which can be expected to change perceptions, not the perceptions themselves.

OK, we're moving along and making progress. We know some things now, I feel like. So, first, what I own and have a right to defend is not the facts. Now the facts are what I worked for and built up with my actions, just as you said. But they're not my property. They're just facts. No one can possibly change them. So they need no defense. They're in the past, and thus immutable.

Second, what I own and have a right to defend is not the thoughts of other people. That would be outrageous. People have a right to think whatever they wish.

So we're narrowing it down. It sound like you are putting forward "FALSE AND INSULTING EXPRESSION" as a candidate for what it is exactly that violates this property called reputation. That, and only that, is the criminal action. Is that correct?

[noneedtoaggress]

I keep looking for a substantive response, but see none.

Are you going to beat me up?

[jj-]

The whole idea is ridiculous. As if the government stating noneedtoagress lied is going to change my beliefs about someone. Let me emphasize: THE GOVERNMENT stating that noneedtoaggress said something false. That would give noneedtoaggress' statement more credibility. Reputation laws are nothing but a tool of authoritarians to silence the speech of the opposition or the less powerful.

[sailingaway]

OK, we're moving along and making progress. We know some things now, I feel like. So, first, what I own and have a right to defend is not the facts. Now the facts are what I worked for and built up with my actions, just as you said. But they're not my property. They're just facts. No one can possibly change them. So they need no defense. They're in the past, and thus immutable.

Second, what I own and have a right to defend is not the thoughts of other people. That would be outrageous. People have a right to think whatever they wish.

So we're narrowing it down. It sound like you are putting forward "FALSE AND INSULTING EXPRESSION" as a candidate for what it is exactly that violates this property called reputation. That, and only that, is the criminal action. Is that correct?

Not necessarily only that, but including that, and I'm thinking of tort not criminal action.

[Reece]

It is the FALSE AND INSULTING EXPRESSION which can be expected to change perceptions, not the perceptions themselves.

Isn't this false and insulting expression part of the other person's perception and thoughts? And, if so, why can they not communicate these thoughts?

[acptulsa]

That, and only that, is the criminal action. Is that correct?

Oh, you came so close. You almost have the question answered.

It isn't criminal. Civil court, not criminal court. You can't go to jail for it. The worst that can happen is you have to pay restitution.

Now you're correct.

[sailingaway]

Isn't this false and insulting expression part of the other person's perception and thoughts? And, if so, why can they not communicate these thoughts?

You've seen it. Media goes out to hundreds of millions and your correction is only seen by a few. Plus then it is only your word against theirs and to those who don't know you they have no idea of the truth.

[helmuth_hubener]

Not necessarily only that, but including that, and I'm thinking of tort not criminal action. OK, very well. Let me know if you think of any other actions besides false and insulting expression which would also trespass on my right to my reputation.

So if making false and insulting expressions is the offending act, then the lack of false and insulting expressions is what I have a property right in. Is that correct?

[sailingaway]

OK, very well. Let me know if you think of any other actions besides false and insulting expression which would also trespass on my right to my reputation.

So if making false and insulting expressions is the offending act, then the lack of false and insulting expressions is what I have a property right in. Is that correct?

You are trying to make it exclusive, and I don't agree with that.

I do agree you would have a right to get damages for knowingly or recklessly false and damaging expressions of your actions

[helmuth_hubener]

You almost have the question answered.
...[Change "criminal action" to "civil offense".]
Now you're correct.OK. I never did understand what your question was.

[helmuth_hubener]

You are trying to make it exclusive, and I don't agree with that. Making what exclusive? I do not understand. Please specify pronouns, it makes things so much clearer.


I do agree you would have a right to get damages for knowingly or recklessly false and damaging expressions of your actions In other words, I have a right for people to not make such expressions. I have a right to these expression's absence, yes?

[acptulsa]

OK. I never did understand what your question was.

It wasn't my question, it was key to this whole thing, and you edited it out of the OP when you changed the hell out of it. But you finally thought it through so it's all good.

U.S. jurisprudence holds you have the right to seek redress if someone's lies cause you material harm. The right to seek redress. Basic civil court stuff.

[sailingaway]

Making what exclusive? I do not understand. Please specify pronouns, it makes things so much clearer.

In other words, I have a right for people to not make such expressions. I have a right to these expression's absence, yes?

When you say 'this and only this' would be owned that is making it exclusive.

But yes, a person has responsibility for damage caused by those knowingly or recklessly false and damaging expressions.

There is a difference between responsibility and prevention.

[heavenlyboy34]

You've seen it. Media goes out to hundreds of millions and your correction is only seen by a few. Plus then it is only your word against theirs and to those who don't know you they have no idea of the truth.
Yeah. Freedom of speech and association suck. /sarc

[jj-]

U.S. jurisprudence holds you have the right to seek redress if someone's lies cause you material harm. The right to seek redress. Basic civil court stuff.

More accurately, basic authoritarian stuff. Assuming people are idiots and will believe things without evidence, and that the government should protect them from themselves.

[sailingaway]

Yeah. Freedom of speech and association suck. /sarc

demagoguery again.

KNOWINGLY FALSE AND DAMAGING expressions against another suck, yeah.

[helmuth_hubener]

It wasn't my question, it was key to this whole thing, and you edited it out of the OP when you changed the hell out of it. But you finally thought it through so it's all good.

U.S. jurisprudence holds you have the right to seek redress if someone's lies cause you material harm. The right to seek redress. Basic civil court stuff. I posted Pericles' post in its entirety. You can find it, back on page, uhh, let's see, oh here we go, Page 1.

The only question he asked in said post, I answered quite clearly. The answer I gave was "Yes".

[noneedtoaggress]

I wonder if sailingaway, whos obviously a plant on RPF sent here to divide us on this issue, is going to demand money from me and beat me up and extract it when I refuse.

If he does it just proves he's a plant. He doesn't want the truth out, the shill! We must remain vigilant and watch his actions closely.

http://www.eyedoctorguide.com/images/shifty_eyes.jpg

[Reece]

You've seen it. Media goes out to hundreds of millions and your correction is only seen by a few. Plus then it is only your word against theirs and to those who don't know you they have no idea of the truth.

This is sort of getting out of the discussion of "rights" and into the consequences of getting rid of these laws.

And, on that topic, these things happen with these laws in place. Why should we think they would be more likely to occur without these laws? In a free society, media companies may voluntarily agree be subject to the decisions of an arbitrator if someone brings a case against them, in order to show that they are being honest. Since these arbitrators could lose their own reputation at any time (and no company would want to use an arbitrator with a bad reputation), they would have to try to stay honest in their decisions. This is far more than can be said for the government system.

Even if they do not decide to be subject to arbitration in such cases, they will still be held accountable by competition. Even today, the mainstream sources of news are losing influence (mainly due to the internet, which the government has little control over).

[acptulsa]

More accurately, basic authoritarian stuff. Assuming people are idiots and will believe things without evidence, and that the government should protect them from themselves.

The government isn't protecting anyone from himself with libel, slander and defamation laws. Indeed, it isn't even protecting the rich from the poor, considering it's civil and a civil judgement against someone who's broke doesn't really mean anything.

These laws allow a company or a professional to protect himself, herself or itself from an unscrupulous competitor. They've been around for several centuries now, that this seems to be how they work out.

[jj-]

They've been around for several centuries now, that this seems to be how they work out.

What an argument. Can't stop laughing.

[jj-]

These laws allow a company or a professional to protect himself, herself or itself from an unscrupulous competitor.

If some professional stops making money because I don't buy something from him after you lied about him and I believed you, then I lose too. So the government is protecting me from myself. Regarding the professional, he doesn't have a right to have me as a customer. I can decide to stop buying from him for a good reason, a stupid reason, or no reason at all, so he doesn't deserve any protection whatsoever to protect his right to have me, or anyone, as his customer, because that right doesn't exist.

[sailingaway]

I wonder if sailingaway, whos obviously a plant on RPF sent here to divide us on this issue, is going to demand money from me and beat me up and extract it when I refuse.

If he does it just proves he's a plant. He doesn't want the truth out, the shill! We must remain vigilant and watch his actions closely.

http://www.eyedoctorguide.com/images/shifty_eyes.jpg

Of course you are concerned about that because it is so consistent with my argument and other actions on here.

[acptulsa]

What an argument. Can't stop laughing.

I wasn't arguing. I was telling you what these laws do. I don't know how you could decide if you want these laws, or if you want them gone, or if you want someone other than government to handle them, if you have no clue what the hell they are and why the hell they're there.


If some professional stops making money because I don't buy something from him after you lied about him and I believed you, then I lose too. So the government is protecting me from myself.

Yes. Hell no. Yes, you lose too. No, the government is attempting to protect both the professional and you from my lies, not your gullibility.

Unfortunately for you, only the professional gets to collect from me.


Regarding the professional, he doesn't have a right to have me as a customer. I can decide to stop buying from him for a good reason, a stupid reason, or no reason at all, so he doesn't deserve any protection whatsoever to protect his right to have me, or anyone, as his customer, because that right doesn't exist.

Who the hell said he did? I sure as hell didn't. And neither does the government. If the professional is diligent about protecting his reputation, you may not have any logical reason not to trust the professional. But you're entitled to all the silly-assed reasons in the world why you don't trust that professional. What's more, if your reasons are not based on falsehoods, but merely silliness, you can tell everyone and his dog and the professional can't sue you for it. 'You shouldn't do business with him because I'm a silly ass' isn't harmful to his reputation.

[helmuth_hubener]

I have a right to these expression's absence, yes?
...
But yes, a person has responsibility for damage caused by those knowingly or recklessly false and damaging expressions.OK, so if I have a right to a lack of knowingly or recklessly false and damaging expressions, let's call them KRFD expressions, if I have a right to the ongoing absence of KRFD expressions in the world, that means I have the right to restrict the content of people's conversations. Would you agree with that? They must not have conversations containing KRFDs. Who is "they"? (Look at me, breaking my own advice and using pronouns). They is everyone. There is no one in the world who would be in the right to make KRFDs about me. Any of them doing so would be in the wrong. I have a right to have everyone in the world refrain from making KRFDs about me. Am I correct so far?

[noneedtoaggress]

Of course you are concerned about that because it is so consistent with my argument and other actions on here.

Wait, so you're using free speech to counteract my "lies"??

:eek:

BLAST YOU!!!

[sailingaway]

This is sort of getting out of the discussion of "rights" and into the consequences of getting rid of these laws.



I was responding to a particular question about why couldn't it just be countered with true statements.

[jj-]

I wasn't arguing. I was telling you what these laws do. I don't know how you could decide if you want these laws, or if you want them gone, or if you want someone other than government to handle them, if you have no clue what the hell they are and why the hell they're there.

LOL. I know perfectly well why they're here: authoritarianism, aversion to freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

[sailingaway]

OK, so if I have a right to a lack of knowingly or recklessly false and damaging expressions, let's call them KRFD expressions, if I have a right to the ongoing absence of KRFD expressions in the world, that means I have the right to restrict the content of people's conversations. Would you agree with that? They must not have conversations containing KRFDs. Who is "they"? (Look at me, breaking my own advice and using pronouns). They is everyone. There is no one in the world who would be in the right to make KRFDs about me. Any of them doing so would be in the wrong. I have a right to have everyone in the world refrain from making KRFDs about me. Am I correct so far?

you edited out all my statement about not restricting speech in advance but being responsible for results if it was knowingly or recklessly false and damaging.

[jj-]

I was responding to a particular question about why couldn't it just be countered with true statements.

You're making a great case for McCain-Feingold. I thought I was in the Democratic Underground for a second.

[sailingaway]

You're making a great case for McCain-Feingold. I thought I was in the Democratic Underground for a second.

Not at all. I'm not giving government a claim nor saying you can stop true expressions. Without mccain feingold if someone ran an add knowing it was libelous and it caused damages, they would be responsible.

[helmuth_hubener]

you edited out all my statement about not restricting speech in advance but being responsible for results if it was knowingly or recklessly false and damaging. I edited it out because we're already agreed on that and it's a sidenote to the main track. I had nothing interesting to say about it. Just "yeah, that's true". Look, there's a reason you see my trap from a mile away. It's because: there's no trap! You've already preemptively addressed this multiple times. You don't want to restrict speech in advance. I get it, I really do.

I'm not laying a trap. I'm trying to figure out, logically, incontrovertibly, what you think about reputation, what I think about reputation, and what the truth is. And what everyone else on the thread thinks too, for that matter,

[sailingaway]

It's because it's a sidenote and we're already agreed on that. Look, there's a reason you see my trap from a mile away. It's because: there's no trap! You've already preemptively addressed this multiple times. You don't want to restrict speech in advance. I get it, I really do.

I'm not laying a trap. I'm trying to figure out, logically, incontrovertibly, what you think about reputation, what I think about reputation, and what the truth is. And what everyone else on the thread thinks too, for that matter,

I think when you build something you have rights in it. Others may have conflicting rights, sometimes, say if you build on their property or whatever. But you have some equitable right. And I don't think it is less important in building the truth of your reputation, I actually think that is MORE important than less personal things you build.

[Reece]

I was responding to a particular question about why couldn't it just be countered with true statements.

My two questions were:


Isn't this false and insulting expression part of the other person's perception and thoughts? And, if so, why can they not communicate these thoughts?

To which you replied with that statement. I didn't bring up anything about countering them with true statements, although I don't disagree that countering the statements with the truth would work well. Perhaps I misunderstood your original post (or you misunderstood mine)?

[sailingaway]

My two questions were:



To which you replied with that statement. I didn't bring up anything about countering them with true statements, although I don't disagree that countering the statements with the truth would work well. Perhaps I misunderstood your original post (or you misunderstood mine)?

Sorry, I misread your 'they' as referring to the person being slandered responding.

[acptulsa]

OK, so if I have a right to a lack of knowingly or recklessly false and damaging expressions, let's call them KRFD expressions, if I have a right to the ongoing absence of KRFD expressions in the world, that means I have the right to restrict the content of people's conversations. Would you agree with that? They must not have conversations containing KRFDs. Who is "they"? (Look at me, breaking my own advice and using pronouns). They is everyone. There is no one in the world who would be in the right to make KRFDs about me. Any of them doing so would be in the wrong. I have a right to have everyone in the world refrain from making KRFDs about me. Am I correct so far?

American jurisprudence merely says that if it isn't political and you're not a politician, and you suffer financial losses over it, you have the right to seek redress for it. You can't stop them from saying what they will, but you can make them pay you for whatever harm you can prove they caused you.


LOL. I know perfectly well why they're here: authoritarianism, aversion to freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

No, or they'd have been applied to political speech from the first. Instead, Jefferson and his allies caused generations of would-be tinpot dictators to come endless consternation by making political speech in the U.S. exempt from libel and slander laws. No, or they'd have been applied even to truthful statements from the first. Truthfulness has always been a defense in libel and slander cases. Ignorance is a dangerous thing--it makes it hard to differentiate a clear and present danger from your basic non-issue.

Confused enemies is good. Your own confusion is bad.

[Anti Federalist]

In what way has aggression been committed against me if someone runs around telling scurrilous lies about me?

"Hello 911? I just saw Chris Dorner go into Helmuth Huberner's house!! They are working together! I just heard gunshots!! Come quickly!!"

/thread

[jj-]

Exchange of ideas is not a good method of determining the facts. The best method to determine what the facts are is having the government step in when someone says something that is wrong. That's the argument of the authoritarian side represented here.

Also, the damage to reputations by falsehoods only is possible if people act like idiots and are willing believe things without evidence. The people here proposing to write laws under those assumptions are proof that government brainwashing is working really well.

Another unintended consequence is that the willingness of people to act like idiots and believe things without evidence is left unchallenged. Professionals get the stolen money. If not, they probably would've done something when they realized how dangerous it is to live surrounded by idiots, but he does nothing because he has his stolen money.

[helmuth_hubener]

I think when you build something you have rights in it. No, we ruled that out. We're beyond that. I thought we were beyond that. The thing I built was the facts. That edifice of good actions and honorable life which one builds up by his effort and self-control. Like for instance, what Ron Paul built by being faithful to his wife for 56 years was: the fact that he was faithful to her for 56 years! Along with experiencing a long happy marriage and everything else that resulted from that fact. No one can go back in time and change the fact that he was faithful. That was his action. That was what he built. It's invulnerable to any attack. Past events cannot be changed, only misreported.

So maybe Ron Paul "owns" the fact that he was faithful, or "owns" the last 56 years of happiness he experienced with his wife. Certainly I'm sure those memories are one of his most valuable possessions. But those facts and memories are not taken away from him if someone makes KRFDs. Those facts receive no protection from the law, and indeed need none. Because again, they're invulnerable. No one can damage that property, if it is property, without building a time machine. So it doesn't really matter whether Ron has a right in it or not. Because it's a right that absolutely cannot be violated. It's impossible.

Do you agree with all this?


Others may have conflicting rights, sometimes, say if you build on their property or whatever. But you have some equitable right. And it's up to careful and methodical thinking to determine exactly what that right is.


And I don't think it is less important in building the truth of your reputation, I actually think that is MORE important than less personal things you build. I agree. As I say, I'm sure his relationship with his wife is many a man's most prized and important possessions.

[sailingaway]

I don't think suing for damages based on actual damage to you from libelous acts is any more the government stepping in then suing someone for driving their car through your window and refusing to pay for it.

I do believe courts to enforce rights are a proper role of government.

[sailingaway]

No, we ruled that out. We're beyond that. I thought we were beyond that. The thing I built was the facts. Like for instance, what Ron Paul built by being faithful to his wife for 56 years was: the fact that he was faithful to her for 56 years, along with experiencing a long happy marriage and everything else that resulted from that fact. No one can go back in time and change the fact that he was faithful. That was his action. That was what he built. It's invulnerable to any attack. Past events cannot be changed, only misreported.

So maybe Ron Paul "owns" the fact that he was faithful, or "owns" the last 56 years of happiness he experienced with his wife. Certainly I'm sure those memories are one of his most valuable possessions. But those facts and memories are not taken away from him if someone makes KRFDs. They receive no protection from the law, and indeed need none. Because again, they're invulnerable. No one can damage that property, if it is property, without building a time machine. So it doesn't really matter whether Ron has a right in it or not. Because it's a right that absolutely cannot be violated. It's impossible.

Do you agree with all this?

And it's up to careful and methodical thinking to determine exactly what that right is.

I agree. As I say, I'm sure his relationship with his wife is many a man's most prized and important possessions.

Actually, I believe they can be tainted if his wife is told lies about him, with false photoshop or something. I don't know if that precise kind would get more than punitive damages under damages laws, though.

[acptulsa]

Exchange of ideas is not a good method of determining the facts. The best method to determine what the facts are is having the government step in when someone says something that is wrong. That's the argument of the authoritarian side represented here.

No, what was said here is that government civil courts are willing to hear civil suits concerning libel and slander--and have since this nation was formed. No one ever went to jail over it. And the burden of proving the facts lies with the litigants, not the government.


Also, the damage to reputations by falsehoods only is possible if people act like idiots and are willing believe things without evidence. The people here proposing to write laws under those assumptions shows the government brainwashing is working really well.

I haven't seen anyone propose to write laws in either this thread or the one that spawned it. I was merely describing laws that have been on the books for generations.


Another unintended consequence is that the willing of people to act like idiots and believe things without evidence is left alone. The professionals get the stolen money. If not, they probably would've done something when they realized how dangerous it is to live surrounded by idiots, but he does nothing because he has his stolen money.

I have no clue whatsoever what the fuck you're trying to say.

[noneedtoaggress]

"Hello 911? I just saw Chris Dorner go into Helmuth Huberner's house!! They are working together! I just heard gunshots!! Come quickly!!"

/thread

In which case the aggression depends on how police react to this information.

Is the aggression by the man giving an incorrect report, or the police who don't approach the situation rationally and charge in guns blazing?

[noneedtoaggress]

But either way that doesn't have to do with whether reputation is property.

[sailingaway]

In which case the aggression depends on how police react to this information.

Is the aggression by the man giving an incorrect report, or the police who don't approach the situation rationally and charge in guns blazing?

regardless, guns are likely to be blazing and people are likely to die, from what we've seen with trucks.

So if someone did this, knowing it was a lie, intending to get back at HH for not agreeing with him on the definition of rights or something, would that be non actionable?

[sailingaway]

But either way that doesn't have to do with whether reputation is property.

true, but it shows speech is an action with consequences in a way that the person just thinking the same thought would not have been.

[noneedtoaggress]

regardless, guns are likely to be blazing and people are likely to die, from what we've seen with trucks.

So if someone did this, knowing it was a lie, intending to get back at HH for not agreeing with him on the definition of rights or something, would that be non actionable?

You're pushing the responsibility off the police. Which is exactly what they want.

They need to do their job properly and correctly identify when force should be applied. Period.

[sailingaway]

You're pushing the responsibility off the police. Which is exactly what they want.

They need to do their job properly and correctly identify when force should be applied. Period.

no, this particular statement just said that it was a forseeable consequence that making that false statement could lead to someone getting shot.

I absolutely agree that the police should try to take suspects alive for trial and not shoot unless needed to protect themselves or the public, and certainly not without knowing what target they are shooting at.

[acptulsa]

regardless, guns are likely to be blazing and people are likely to die, from what we've seen with trucks.

So if someone did this, knowing it was a lie, intending to get back at HH for not agreeing with him on the definition of rights or something, would that be non actionable?

This has nothing to do with libel and slander. Those are not new areas of jurisprudence. This is a new area of jurisprudence. When law enforcement agencies got judicial warrants before it acted, of course, it was immune from legal action, and so were lying 'sources' (who seldom got their crap past the judge anyway). Once you throw the Constitution out the window, however, you're liable to open up some interesting new fields of liability.

I blame the lawyers. They love interesting new fields of liability.

[jj-]

I have no clue whatsoever what the fuck you're trying to say.

It wasn't directed at you, anyway. It was written for people still trying to make up their minds, not established apologists of the nanny state.

[heavenlyboy34]

demagoguery again.
Nope.

KNOWINGLY FALSE AND DAMAGING expressions against another suck, yeah.
As does gossip. So? If we took your reasoning to its logical conclusion there would be no tabloids, editorials, very few "news" pieces, and a lot fewer books on controversial people/subjects.
btw, you also have to prove your positive claim-present the proof that a reputation is property and/or slander and libel are serious enough to be criminal.

[sailingaway]

This has nothing to do with libel and slander. Those are not new areas of jurisprudence. This is a new area of jurisprudence. When law enforcement agencies got judicial warrants before it acted, of course, it was immune from legal action, and so were lying 'sources' (who seldom got their crap past the judge anyway). Once you throw the Constitution out the window, however, you're liable to open up some interesting new fields of liability.

I blame the lawyers. They love interesting new fields of liability.


I agree that this isn't exactly libel and slander. someone in another thread mentioned that the reason Rothbard could argue against libel being actionable is that he confined his determinations to thoughts and didn't recognize EXPRESSION of lying and damaging thoughts as an action. That tended to support what I had been saying earlier, but it is indeed off topic.

[noneedtoaggress]

no, this particular statement just said that it was a forseeable consequence that making that false statement could lead to someone getting shot.

And a guy could have been lying about his friend taking a dump in a stall at a nightclub when he was really doing drugs and could lead to someone standing in line and getting in a fight and eventually someone getting shot in the parking lot afterwards if it escalates.

The people at fault are still the people initiating violence and shooting at each other when they shouldn't be.

[jj-]

As does gossip. So? If we took your reasoning to its logical conclusion there would be no tabloids, editorials, very few "news" pieces, and a lot fewer books on controversial people/subjects.

If you noticed SA's moderation style, that's probably how he would like it.

[sailingaway]

And a guy could have been lying about his friend taking a dump in a stall at a nightclub when he was really doing drugs and could lead to someone standing in line and getting in a fight and eventually someone getting shot in the parking lot afterwards if it escalates.

The people at fault are still the people initiating violence and shooting at each other.

The issue is forseeability and intent here. Forseeability is more of a connection than causation. But it isn't libel or slander.

[heavenlyboy34]

This has nothing to do with libel and slander. Those are not new areas of jurisprudence. This is a new area of jurisprudence. When law enforcement agencies got judicial warrants before it acted, of course, it was immune from legal action, and so were lying 'sources' (who seldom got their crap past the judge anyway). Once you throw the Constitution out the window, however, you're liable to open up some interesting new fields of liability.

I blame the lawyers. They love interesting new fields of liability.
What do you call 1000 lawyers chained to an ocean floor? A good start. ;):D

[acptulsa]

Nope.

As does gossip. So? If we took your reasoning to its logical conclusion there would be no tabloids, editorials, very few "news" pieces, and a lot fewer books on controversial people/subjects.

Nope.

All the woman did is tell you how things are. So how could taking how things are 'to their logical conclusion' possibly result in things not being as they are?

Editorials are political speech, and exempt. Tabloids do get sued, but for the most part celebrities decide any publicity is good publicity and don't bother. Besides, libel and slander are notoriously hard to prove. Books can say anything whatsoever if it's demonstrably true. or if the copyright page says, 'any resemblance to any person living or dead is coincidence'. And most of the lying news stories don't result in damages to reputations that cost the victim money, because news sources treat professionals with respect even if they treat no one else with respect.

And that's why things are the way they are and yet are the way they are.

[noneedtoaggress]

The issue is forseeability and intent here. Forseeability is more of a connection than causation. But it isn't libel or slander.

He's lying to a thug prone to violence, and everyone knows the thug overreacts to bullshit cause he likes fighting, whatever. Does that make the result his fault now?

[helmuth_hubener]

Actually, I believe they can be tainted if his wife is told lies about him, with false photoshop or something. I don't know if that precise kind would get more than punitive damages under damages laws, though.This would be an extremely sad thing, and tragic. Someone doing this is would be acting despicably. I think we can all agree on that. But it is sad because of the effect it has on the future. The despicable act is changing future events, not past ones. The past events cannot be changed. The facts cannot be changed. So an ownership in "what he built" can't literally be what we're talking about when we talk about an ownership in reputation. What he built were all these past events and facts and daily acts that add up to something great. Those past events and facts and daily acts cannot be modified. They are beyond the purview of any evil doer to change them.

Again, do you agree with all this?

[sailingaway]

He's lying to a thug prone to violence, and everyone knows the thug overreacts to bullshit, whatever. Does that make the result his fault now?

a court would have to see if it was sufficiently forseeable. Your example sounds like it was an outside possiblity, maybe, not something that would precipitate the reason for the lie to begin with.

[sailingaway]

This would be an extremely sad thing, and tragic. Someone doing this is would be acting despicably. I think we can all agree on that. But it is sad because of the effect it has on the future. The despicable act is changing future events, not past ones. The past events cannot be changed. The facts cannot be changed. So an ownership in "what he built" can't literally be what we're talking about when we talk about an ownership in reputation. What he built were all these past events and facts and daily acts that add up to something great. Those past events and facts and daily acts cannot be modified. They are beyond the purview of any evil doer to change them.

Again, do you agree with all this?

but I don't think it is just the facts but the reputation you built through actually living that life that you are entitled to defend or get recompense for damage regarding, if the damaging statements were knowingly or recklessly false and forseeably damaging.

[acptulsa]

Those past events and facts and daily acts cannot be modified. They are beyond the purview of any evil doer to change them.

One bit of protection the laws provide consumers is the law against altering the odometer of an automobile. Because the fact that an automobile has three hundred thousand miles on it is inalterable, but that past can be misrepresented.

[heavenlyboy34]

One bit of protection the laws provide consumers is the law against altering the odometer of an automobile. Because the fact that an automobile has three hundred thousand miles on it is inalterable, but that past can be misrepresented.
On top of that, we now have things like carfax reports in case a disreputable dealer tries to tinker with the odometer. Free market FTW! :) :cool:

[jj-]

One bit of protection the laws provide consumers is the law against altering the odometer of an automobile. Because the fact that an automobile has three hundred thousand miles on it is inalterable, but that past can be misrepresented.

A similar situation would be someone paying me to tell him the truth about a professional and me knowingly lying about it. That's a different thing. Just talking about somebody shouldn't be penalized by the government.

[acptulsa]

A similar situation would be someone paying me to tell him the truth about a professional and me knowingly lying about it. That's a different thing. Just talking about somebody shouldn't be penalized by the government.

Okay.

It isn't.

Restitution is not considered a penalty, and the government doesn't bring suit on this the way it does in a criminal trial. It will hear the suit, but won't bring the suit.

Does this make you happy?

[jj-]

Restitution is not considered a penalty,

Technically, it's not even a penalty. In the case of defamation, libel, etc., it's theft.

[Reece]

someone in another thread mentioned that the reason Rothbard could argue against libel being actionable is that he confined his determinations to thoughts and didn't recognize EXPRESSION of lying and damaging thoughts as an action.

This isn't really true about Rothbard. He went into the issue of printing these thoughts and the damaging of reputation in Ethics of Liberty (maybe someone should sue this poster for libel! :p). This was an interesting example he used at one point:


Suppose that Brown has produced his mousetrap, and then Robinson comes out with a better one. The "reputation" of Brown for excellence in mousetraps now declines sharply as consumers shift their attitudes and their purchases, and buy Robinson's mousetrap instead. Can we not then say, on the principle of the "reputation" theory, that Robinson has injured the reputation of Brown, and can we not then outlaw Robinson from competing with Brown? If not, why not? Or should it be illegal for Robinson to advertise, and to tell the world that his mousetrap is better?

And, a more general outlook on if someone is lying:


Smith has a property right to the ideas or opinions in his own head; he also has a property right to print anything he wants and disseminate it. He has a property right to say that Jones is a "thief" even if he knows it to be false, and to print and sell that statement. The counter-view, and the current basis for holding libel and slander (especially of false statements) to be illegal is that every man has a "property right" in his own reputation, that Smith's falsehoods damage that reputation, and that therefore Smith's libels are invasions of Jones's property right in his reputation and should be illegal. Yet, again, on closer analysis this is a fallacious view. For everyone, as we have stated, owns his own body; he has a property right in his own head and person. But since every man owns his own mind, he cannot therefore own the minds of anyone else. And yet Jones's "reputation" is neither a physical entity nor is it something contained within or on his own person. Jones's "reputation" is purely a function of the subjective attitudes and beliefs about him contained in the minds of other people. But since these are beliefs in the minds of others, Jones can in no way legitimately own or control them. Jones can have no property right in the beliefs and minds of other people.

The whole chapter can be found here: http://mises.org/daily/2572

[sailingaway]

This isn't really true about Rothbard. He went into the issue of printing these thoughts and the damaging of reputation in Ethics of Liberty (maybe someone should sue this poster for libel! :p). This was an interesting example he used at one point:



And, a more general outlook on if someone is lying:



The whole chapter can be found here: http://mises.org/daily/2572

The first of those isn't false so it wouldn't apply to libel or slander, the mouse trap is actually more popular.

the second I disagree with because there are actions which forseeably cause harm to someone's reputation which I see as their property.

[Reece]

The first of those isn't false so it wouldn't apply to libel or slander, the mouse trap is actually more popular.

the second I disagree with because there are actions which forseeably cause harm to someone's reputation which I see as their property.

But in this example it would cause damage to someone else's reputation, even though it was true. If I own my reputation, and someone else damages it (whether through the truth or lies), why wouldn't this be aggression against me?

The lie is simply part of another person's thoughts that they write out (and so cannot be aggression). The damage to another person's trade due to a loss in reputation happens all the time in various fields, as in Rothbard's example (and so cannot be aggression). Both of these things it appears you think should be allowed individually. Why, when done together, does it suddenly become an act of aggression? Also, there is clearly a time difference between when the lie is made and when the damage is done. Is there a certain length of time when it no longer becomes aggression? (For example, suppose 50 years after I call you a liar someone sees the post and spreads it around thus damaging your life; would I suddenly have committed agression?)

[sailingaway]

But in this example it would cause damage to someone else's reputation, even though it was true. If I own my reputation, and someone else damages it (whether through the truth or lies), why wouldn't this be aggression against me?

The lie is simply part of another person's thoughts that they write out (and so cannot be aggression). The damage to another person's trade due to a loss in reputation happens all the time in various fields, as in Rothbard's example (and so cannot be aggression). Both of these things it appears you think should be allowed individually. Why, when done together, does it suddenly become an act of aggression? Also, there is clearly a time difference between when the lie is made and when the damage is done. Is there a certain length of time when it no longer becomes aggression? (For example, suppose 50 years after I call you a liar someone sees the post and spreads it around thus damaging your life; would I suddenly have committed agression?)

I think that is sophistry. A tree branch falling naturally can crush a car but if you do it with a hammer it is aggression.

[Reece]

I think that is sophistry. A tree branch falling naturally can crush a car but if you do it with a hammer it is aggression.

The person hammering the car is directly damaging the property; the tree branch falling is not directly caused by any human.

Both the lie and the truth have the same effect on the person's property. If a person does not own their reputation, they do not harm the person's property in the slightest. If the person does own their reputation, both the truth and the lie harm the person's property, and both should be punished similarily to the hammer dropper.

[ClydeCoulter]

In one case, some new property is created.

[sailingaway]

The person hammering the car is directly damaging the property; the tree branch falling is not directly caused by any human.

Both the lie and the truth have the same effect on the person's property. If a person does not own their reputation, they do not harm the person's property in the slightest. If the person does own their reputation, both the truth and the lie harm the person's property, and both should be punished similarily to the hammer dropper.

but a person has a right to speak the truth, I think it IS aggression to falsely say something about someone you know is false and will hurt them. How is it not aggression?

[jj-]

but a person has a right to speak the truth, I think it IS aggression to falsely say something about someone you know is false and will hurt them. How is it not aggression?

if it is, so is saying something false that damages someone's property.

[sailingaway]

if it is, so is saying something false that damages someone's property.

If it is knowingly false or recklessly so, it is aggressive.

If you say something nasty about someone knowingly, how do you feel when you are doing it? "This will get them!" or something? I mean, don't you feel inside that it is wrong and you are being aggressive? If it is true, it is their own fault, but if it isn't....

[green73]

Without reading the thread: No.

[jj-]

If it is knowingly false or recklessly so, it is aggressive.

If you say something nasty about someone knowingly, how do you feel when you are doing it? "This will get them!" or something? I mean, don't you feel inside that it is wrong and you are being aggressive? If it is true, it is their own fault, but if it isn't....

If it's aggression, it's also aggression to say something truthful that damages someone's property, and telling true statements that damages someone's property should be penalized as well.

[sailingaway]

If it's aggression, it's also aggression to say something truthful that damages someone's property, and telling true statements that damages someone's property should be penalized as well.

I disagree because the statement contents originated with the person it is being said about, not with the person who says it. If you make it up it originated with you. I think the right to speak the truth trumps there.

[sailingaway]

However, libel initially was actionable whether it was true or not, under common law, so maybe the old courts in England saw it your way.

[Reece]

but a person has a right to speak the truth, I think it IS aggression to falsely say something about someone you know is false and will hurt them. How is it not aggression?

People have the right to speak both truly or falsely. A similar question could be asked: "How is it not aggression to truthfully say something about someone you know is true and will hurt them?"

The answer to both of these questions is simply because it doesn't force the other person to do anything with their property, and doesn't change what property the other person has. Me writing on my piece of paper that you are an evil thief does not stop you from doing what you want with your property. However, you forcing me to not write that you are an evil thief would be aggression against me.

Now, of course I agree that it is morally wrong for me to make these false claims against you.

[green73]

Perhaps relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3vQQBe_02s

[sailingaway]

People have the right to speak both truly or falsely. A similar question could be asked: "How is it not aggression to truthfully say something about someone you know is true and will hurt them?"

The answer to both of these questions is simply because it doesn't force the other person to do anything with their property, and doesn't change what property the other person has. Me writing on my piece of paper that you are an evil thief does not stop you from doing what you want with your property. However, you forcing me to not write that you are an evil thief would be aggression against me.

Now, of course I agree that it is morally wrong for me to make these false claims against you.

look at my response above. I think truth is a right, not maliciously making up lies.

[green73]

Oh Sailing, someone who speaks falsehoods only hurts themselves.

[Reece]

look at my response above. I think truth is a right, not maliciously making up lies.

So what you're saying is the right to speak the truth is a higher right than the right to your reputation?

[sailingaway]

Oh Sailing, someone who speaks falsehoods only hurts themselves.

No, if they show a photoshop of you with another woman to your wife, destroying her trust and ruining your marriage, it hurts many people. Only some damages are recognized by law in any event, mostly punitive if it is really terrible, or if you damage a business or income etc. But that goes to what damages are allowed in law, not whether it is right or wrong.

[sailingaway]

So what you're saying is the right to speak the truth is a higher right than the right to your reputation?

I'm saying you are only entitled to the reputation you actually have, not the illusion you may have projected. But I might be willing to go the other way too, I do think you have a right to speak the truth.

[green73]

No, if they show a photoshop of you with another woman to your wife, destroying her trust and ruining your marriage, it hurts many people. Only some damages are recognized by law in any event, mostly punitive if it is really terrible, or if you damage a business or income etc. But that goes to what damages are allowed in law, not whether it is right or wrong.

Of course that hurts them. They lose all credibility when it's proven it's a photoshop, that the accused was not there.

[sailingaway]

Of course that hurts them. They lose all credibility when it's proven it's a photoshop, that the accused was not there.

If they can prove it. If he leaves a copy and doesn't just show it to her and walk away with it leaving her reeling.

In this media age there is no way to get your proof in front of all the people who saw the initial photoshop since those things are spread much more widely than any later clarification.

[Reece]

I'm saying you are only entitled to the reputation you actually have, not the illusion you may have projected. But I might be willing to go the other way too, I do think you have a right to speak the truth.

Entitled to other people thinking the truth about you, or writing the truth about you (or both)? If I don't have to think the truth about you, and I own my paper and pencil (and myself), why can I not express my thoughts on my paper?

[sailingaway]

Entitled to other people thinking the truth about you, or writing the truth about you (or both)? If I don't have to think the truth about you, and I own my paper and pencil (and myself), why can I not express my thoughts on my paper?

Your expression is an action that impacts others your thoughts are inside you and you can think anything you like. You can THINK the most vicious lie all day and it won't impact your target.

[Reece]

Your expression is an action that impacts others your thoughts are inside you and you can think anything you like. You can THINK the most vicious lie all day and it won't impact your target.

But impacting others negatively is not aggression necessarily. If I don't buy from your store, you will be worse off than if I did buy from your store. I might even not buy from your store for reasons that are not true. While this isn't good for you, it also isn't aggressing against you. Now, on a larger scale, suppose I said that your store was selling poisoned food. Just because some people don't buy from your store does not make me an aggressor.

[green73]

If they can prove it. If he leaves a copy and doesn't just show it to her and walk away with it leaving her reeling.

In this media age there is no way to get your proof in front of all the people who saw the initial photoshop since those things are spread much more widely than any later clarification.

Organizations who pass along falsehoods would have no credibility. They get away with it today because challenging them is an onerous and costly prospect for the accused. That is why outfits like the NYT and Wapo get away with murder, so to speak. Get rid of libel laws and the bullshit express would die. Listen to the Walter Block video I posted above.

[sailingaway]

They should be non credible now in that case. Why do so many believe them? They have the big trumpets.

I do understand your arguments, I just come down differently on this.

[Reece]

Well, I'm off for a bit. It was nice discussing this issue with you Sailing :)

[sailingaway]

Well, I'm off for a bit. It was nice discussing this issue with you Sailing :)

nice discussing it with you, too! 'Night!

[osan]

I find it interesting to note how word's are discounted in this post as indicated by the question:


In what way has aggression been committed against me if someone runs around telling scurrilous lies about me?

That such a question is seriously posited indicates a profound lack of understanding of the truer value of language. It indicates several other things as well, but I will not go into those here as I have given them treatment in other threads and am tired of repeating my boring self yet another time.

What I will repeat is that language forms our world in ways most people are not even remotely aware. Were they to become sufficiently aware of the place of prominence and import language occupies, they would be moved to reconsider the ways in which they regard and make use of their words. A sufficient understanding of the true significance of language would mean such questions as the one above would never arise.

[heavenlyboy34]

I find it interesting to note how word's are discounted in this post as indicated by the question:

In what way has aggression been committed against me if someone runs around telling scurrilous lies about me?

That such a question is seriously posited indicates a profound lack of understanding of the truer value of language. It indicates several other things as well, but I will not go into those here as I have given them treatment in other threads and am tired of repeating my boring self yet another time.

What I will repeat is that language forms our world in ways most people are not even remotely aware. Were they to become sufficiently aware of the place of prominence and import language occupies, they would be moved to reconsider the ways in which they regard and make use of their words. A sufficient understanding of the true significance of language would mean such questions as the one above would never arise.
+rep! :)

[idiom]

So in a 'free market' branding and marketing should not exist as competitive advantages?

[Ender]

So how does that work? And is it based on a sound footing of respect for property rights? Does this "libel, slander, defamation" respect everyone's property?

If someone is lying about and defaming you, you can get a restraining order against them that basically says they must keep their mouth shut concerning you and your life.

[ClydeCoulter]

So in a 'free market' branding and marketing should not exist as competitive advantages?

That could be an entire thread on it's own.

edit: Is the name "Ron Paul" a brand, as in (tm) or (R)?

[Natural Citizen]

+Reputation.

Which, btw, happen to be nothing more than simple little green dots of digital intellectual property. Ah haaaa...:rolleyes:

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Reputation cannot be owned, because it's the perception in which others view you, and based upon your own actions.

[green73]

Reputation cannot be owned, because it's the perception in which others view you

You're talking too much sense.

[sailingaway]

Reputation cannot be owned, because it's the perception in which others view you, and based upon your own actions.

I disagree, but I've already been through it, and I don't really want to do it again.

[helmuth_hubener]

but I don't think it is just the facts but the reputation you built through actually living that life that you are entitled to defend or get recompense for damage regarding, if the damaging statements were knowingly or recklessly false and forseeably damaging.

Excellent, so there's an implied "yes" there before the "but", I think. So we've now determined a lot of things. The next thing to figure out: what exactly is "reputation"? Please define reputation for me, sailingaway, in your own words.

[helmuth_hubener]

"Hello 911? I just saw Chris Dorner go into Helmuth Huberner's house!! They are working together! I just heard gunshots!! Come quickly!!"

/thread This is a excellent question! And what about the person who calls the pizza place and claims that I want 20 pizzas (or even just 1)? Clearly telling scurrilous lies about me can be an aggressive act. Under what conditions? Is all telling of scurrilous lies aggression? What do people think?

[Pericles]

So in a 'free market' branding and marketing should not exist as competitive advantages?

The issue is that the Rothbard clique view reputation in terms of "property" and are trying to figure who or if it is even possible to "own" it.

The better analogy in my view is to view reputation in terms of the "market price" of a person's ethical behavior. Honorable actions (real or perceived) increase the market price of one's reputation, and thus personal price point, while unethical behavior (real or perceived) decrease the market price of one's reputation. Libel does the reputation harm by lowering its value unjustly. Markets need information to price accurately. False information distorts the markets - just as a fraud does by having a transaction occur at too high a price, thus impacting the market price of a good or service.

[GunnyFreedom]

If one stops and thinks about it, the idea that reputation is property is laughable.

and yet there is a guy on a rampage in Los Angeles over this very issue who isn't laughing a bit.

[acptulsa]

The person hammering the car is directly damaging the property; the tree branch falling is not directly caused by any human.

Both the lie and the truth have the same effect on the person's property. If a person does not own their reputation, they do not harm the person's property in the slightest. If the person does own their reputation, both the truth and the lie harm the person's property, and both should be punished similarily to the hammer dropper.

Punished? Paying restitution after you've harmed someone is punishment? Can't restitution be restitution?

Perhaps the anarchists, and certainly the sophists, may be content to believe a reputation has more rights than a human. But I say a human has the right to tell the truth, period. If people tell the truth about you and your reputation suffers, a branch didn't fall on your car. You parked your car under the branch, then climbed up and sawed the branch off.

How about this one--does a person have a right to establish and maintain a bad reputation? Or are reputations like camp--you get trophies just for showing up? Because I say if a person wants a bad reputation, and works at having a bad reputation, he should be free to have a bad reputation--and you're a complete asshole for trying to make people think highly of him.


I find it interesting to note how word's are discounted in this post as indicated by the question:


In what way has aggression been committed against me if someone runs around telling scurrilous lies about me?

That such a question is seriously posited indicates a profound lack of understanding of the truer value of language. It indicates several other things as well, but I will not go into those here as I have given them treatment in other threads and am tired of repeating my boring self yet another time.

What I will repeat is that language forms our world in ways most people are not even remotely aware. Were they to become sufficiently aware of the place of prominence and import language occupies, they would be moved to reconsider the ways in which they regard and make use of their words. A sufficient understanding of the true significance of language would mean such questions as the one above would never arise.

A sufficient understanding of the true significance of language would have prevented some of these people in this thread from making green phosphorescent jackasses of themselves by accusing me of being the most horrible pinko commie ever for inventing this libel and slander stuff that has been on the books for the last quarter of the Second Millenium.

I hope they make asses of themselves as self-identified anarchists, not libertarians. I don't want my reputation to suffer when they go all stupid in public.


Reputation cannot be owned, because it's the perception in which others view you, and based upon your own actions.

This:


You're talking too much sense.

How did you wind up in this thread with these obnoxious sophists, PoP? You seem to have mistaken them for someone who wants something to do with reality.


Excellent, so there's an implied "yes" there before the "but", I think. So we've now determined a lot of things.

Mostly we've determined that if you can't stuff your own words in someone else's mouth, you don't want to talk to that person at all. But if it makes you feel any better, I don't want to talk to you either.

And no, I did not leave out or leave 'implied' one single word. The sentences above stand clear and as intended. No meaning is hidden within them.

So, this stuff has been around since two hundred years before I was born, but I'm more evil than Stalin for inventing them, and if they're ever implemented the sky will turn purple and all the world's wombats will grow third eyes. Oh, and ignorance is no excuse, too.

Sophistry and anarchy. A match made in Heaven... :rolleyes:

[helmuth_hubener]

So, this stuff has been around since two hundred years before I was born, but I'm more evil than Stalin for inventing them, and if they're ever implemented the sky will turn purple and all the world's wombats will grow third eyes. Oh, and ignorance is no excuse, too.
You'll note that I never called you evil, acptulsa, nor insulted you in any way. But maybe that's because I used to live in Tulsa and I like people from Tulsa. Anyway, you have just been explaining the way the libel, slander, and defamation laws work as they exist at present. I understood that, after a little while.

[acptulsa]

You'll note that I never called you evil, acptulsa, nor insulted you in any way.

True.

Didn't say you did.

Didn't imply it, either.

You're not the only person here.

Holler the next time you visit. I'll buy you a Weber's root beer.

[osan]

So in a 'free market' branding and marketing should not exist as competitive advantages?

It never ceases to amaze me how screwed up the thinking displayed in a thread can get. Not yours specifically, but in general and in such a way that would lead you, for example, to be prompted to ask such a question.

So let us once again strip away all the nonsense attached to the issue through faulty vision and get to the heart of the matter at hand.

We, the individual beings of the world, live in various states of proximity to each other, depending most obviously upon our geographic happenstance. Those states of proximity are what we call "society", which is nothing more than that choice of proximity. Society is a collection of individuals and holds no other reality of its own other than that. It is a mental construct alone, yet people most often come to attribute to it characteristics and qualities not in credibly demonstrable evidence. Why is that? Habit. Bad habit. Very bad.

As such, they come to saddle themselves with all manner of creeping insanity wherein they accept and reassert wildly wrong beliefs that include ones that state "society has the right to <insert your favorite idiot cliche>". The purpose of such nonsense is to bolster other, equally and dangerously false beliefs pursuant to an agenda whose purposes are often benign enough, yet whose results are often monumentally disastrous for some innocent party. Uncle Adolph v. those he decided were unworthy of life comes to mind, as do Uncle Joe and Chairman Mao.

So, here we are living around one another in varying forms and degrees of social intimacy. Each of us have our likes, dislikes, our desires and needs, as well as those things we wish to avoid. This is part of not just the fabric of humanity, but of life itself and can be observed in the manifest behavior of nearly all living things.

Part and parcel of our social proclivities includes interaction of all manners, be they sexual, friendly, filial, religious, "cultural", or trade-oriented. In the course of such interactions between individuals and their fellows there are bumps in the mostly smooth roadways upon which they travel together. Being what we are, we make mistakes in our dealings with others. We communicate imprecisely, mis-measure, over-step boundaries by flawed intend or accident, and so forth. People are in very broad agreement that it in general it is a good idea to make amends when such errors occur, whether they be intentionally committed or otherwise. This is because it is best, not for "society", but for each individual making it up that we be on nominally honest terms with one another. In so being, larger problems that lead to disastrous and most often violent results are avoided.

Because we most often avoid things which do us damage of one form or another, ignoring such exceptional cases as drug abuse, trust becomes a centrally important element in our interactions with one another. When we buy food from the market, we need to trust that the food is wholesome and non-toxic or we would have to make other arrangements for our daily sustenance. When we trade, we must trust that the mediums of exchange, currency for example, are genuine, not counterfeit, and of themselves properly representative of value, vague as that notion tends to be. When at the barbershop getting a shave I must trust the barber will not cut my throat with that razor because my very existence depends on it.

As a man grows from childhood he develops his habits of behavior and those around him observe and remember his character as made manifest and apparent through his actions. With respect to each element of interpersonal interaction they observe and file away how he behaves among and with his fellows and attached to the memories are the personal evaluations of trustworthiness. As the people around him get to know him better through interaction, a broader picture of the man's overall trustworthiness evolves and this becomes the measure of the man and it enshrined as part of his "reputation".

In addition, there are numerous other characteristics not attached to trustworthiness per se. These elements may or may not be regarded as "secondary" characteristics. Personal hygiene might be one, for example. Whether a given quality counts may perhaps be dependent on how important the consideration is in the mind of a given person, but these are secondary considerations to my way of seeing things and I will not dwell on them any longer. In my mind, the trust issue is the biggest and most important question by far.

A "good" reputation means a man is trustworthy, generally speaking. A man's reputation often precedes him, though not always. In those cases where it does, it affects his ability to move within his circles and to make inroads into new ones. It is his calling card of sorts and while written primarily by him, it is contributed to by those with whom he has contact as well as complete strangers. People talk and others listen, for better and for worse. Once someone makes an unflattering entry into the reputation of another man, others see it and the man's reputation comes under scrutiny. Depending on what is said, how it is said, and the source of the comment, reputations may well suffer such that one's ability to interact with others is measurably and qualitatively altered for the better or worse.

While it may be arguable that the undeserved augmentation of a man's reputation is not harmful to either the man or the larger body of his fellows, it would be indeed difficult to argue that the undeserved disparagement of his reputation is most definitely harmful to one and all fro reasons I will not here address unless someone specifically wishes to pursue the issue.

Given this truth about what constitutes a reputation and the place it occupies in the lives of not only its "owner" but those around him, familiar and otherwise, it should be at least marginally clear that the things people say actually mean something and that their words often have real effects in the lives of the persons about whom they speak. Because of this, onus is upon us all not to trespass against our fellows by unjustly sullying the perception that others may hold of them through false or unreasonably negative utterances, writings, and other communications speaking to their reputations. This does not mean that we cannot have our opinions of a man, but it does suggest that some care is warranted in the exercise of the right to express them. I believe that people are indeed accountable for the things they express and when those expressions unjustly impact another in a negative manner they may be so held.

Just another plugged nickel's worth from the republic of me.

[osan]

Reputation cannot be owned, because it's the perception in which others view you, and based upon your own actions.

This is not 100% true. People, being what they are, often mistakenly or intentionally sully the reputation of a man resulting in readily quantifiable or qualified losses.

Reputation is owned in the sense that everyone gets a copy of it. My perception of someone's reputation is mine and you can't have it in the sense of owning my copy, but once I express it to you, you have a copy of your own to which you will add and subtract as you go along.

[Demigod]

I don't understand how laws that punish public slander against a person are authoritarian and anti free-speech.You can say what ever you want but if you intend to publicly state false facts about me ,I should be able to take to court where you can then prove your facts.

The argument I always read here is "Well you should tell your version and counter the lies with your facts".So I should be spending MY TIME countering lies told by my opponents not to mention that once the seed is planted no amount of facts will ever repair the full damage.Also how does one counter the smear on their reputation when the the one telling the lies has an audience of 20-30% of the population MSM and you have no way to address that many people ?

In my country there is only a fine for slandering if you are a private person,if you are a public one or a journalist then you pay a find and must give the person you slandered the same medium from which you did the slandering.This way if Hannity slanders you on TV,and you take him to court you can then go on his show and make your case.

[jj-]

Excellent, so there's an implied "yes" there before the "but", I think. So we've now determined a lot of things. The next thing to figure out: what exactly is "reputation"? Please define reputation for me, sailingaway, in your own words.

It's nothing but his authoritarian pet issue. He has given no rational basis for justifying it and implied that private property shouldn't be protected, and that the right to tell the truth trumps the right to private property, lol. It's really a third-grade quality argument.

[jj-]

Reputation cannot be owned, because it's the perception in which others view you, and based upon your own actions.

Yeah, but authoritarians have no problem with violating freedom of thought and of speech to make sure people think highly of them.

[jj-]

Punished? Paying restitution after you've harmed someone is punishment?

There are all sorts of damages that should be ignored by the government. When my GF cheated on me, she caused me great harm. When a competitor opened a business, I lost a lot of money. If a person tells another person she is fat, or ugly, she might get some psychological discomfort, lose her focus for some time, and not be as productive during that time and thus lose money. The only types of damage that the government should address are attacks to people's physical integrity, their physical belongings, and violations of contracts.

[Danan]

The issue is that the Rothbard clique view reputation in terms of "property" and are trying to figure who or if it is even possible to "own" it.

The better analogy in my view is to view reputation in terms of the "market price" of a person's ethical behavior. Honorable actions (real or perceived) increase the market price of one's reputation, and thus personal price point, while unethical behavior (real or perceived) decrease the market price of one's reputation. Libel does the reputation harm by lowering its value unjustly. Markets need information to price accurately. False information distorts the markets - just as a fraud does by having a transaction occur at too high a price, thus impacting the market price of a good or service.

But then telling positive lies about a business should be illegal too. It lowers the market value of their competitors if people run around praising a company's products, telling everybody that they are the best on the market, even though they are not really that good. So Samsung would have a good case for sueing every Apple disciple out there...

[jj-]

But then telling positive lies about a business should be illegal too.

What not just make lying illegal? Lying can cause all sorts of unpredictable damage.

[acptulsa]

What not just make lying illegal? Lying can cause all sorts of unpredictable damage.

Do you seriously expect a bunch of politicians to make lying illegal? Most of them would have to have their vocal cords surgically removed.

[jj-]

Do you seriously expect a bunch of politicians to make lying illegal? Most of them would have to have their vocal cords surgically removed.

That's a distraction. I'm just showing what kind of policy his argument requires if he is consistent. And to your distraction, yes, politicians could make lying illegal and exempt themselves, like they do with many other things.

[Danan]

What not just make lying illegal? Lying can cause all sorts of unpredictable damage.

For the record, I was just using Pericles' argument that whether or not lying causes harm should determine if the liar has to pay compensation or not, to show that even positive lies / exaggerations would meet this criterion.

Also, as someone mentioned, sometimes people tell lies about themselves to intentionally "harm" their reputation, while still profiting from it ("bad boy image", etc). Would telling the truth about them be allowed, even though it harms their profits? What about lies about them that harm reputation but increase the victims market value? Could they still be compensated for the lies?

Personally, I don't really know whether I'm fine with all lies being allowed, that are intentionally told to harm a person or business. AF's example was a good one. There is also the famous shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre to cause chaos. Those are really complicated issues. On the one hand, I don't pity lying assholes too much if they have to compensate their victims, even though I can't justify those laws by rigid reasoning. On the other hand, those laws can easily be used to prohibit free speech, even when "knowingly telling falsehoods" or even just "telling falsehoods" cannot be proven sufficiently.

There are also many unintended consiquences mentioned in this thread. Like people believing every bullshit being told, "'cause otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to say it".

[sailingaway]

It's nothing but his authoritarian pet issue. He has given no rational basis for justifying it and implied that private property shouldn't be protected, and that the right to tell the truth trumps the right to private property, lol. It's really a third-grade quality argument.

Uh, no. I see it as an item that is definitely valuable, there is no question there, and it is built by the person who lived the life without actually performing the untrue accusations. Untrue accusations damage or destroy it, and I think that should be recompensible.

Calling names does not make for a stronger argument on your side.

[ClydeCoulter]

What effect does telling a lie about person A have on those that use "reputation" to determine what, if any, associations they will or won't have with person A?

Also, Integrity is one word used to describe an attribute within a person that leads to their reputation.

I think we've already determined that (most everyone?) believes that the government should not create "laws" in these cases or pursue "just us" on their own. I think we are looking at possible "civil suits" brought up by those that deem themselves harmed.

[Reece]

Punished? Paying restitution after you've harmed someone is punishment? Can't restitution be restitution?

Yes, the "punishment" I meant was restitution.


Perhaps the anarchists, and certainly the sophists, may be content to believe a reputation has more rights than a human. But I say a human has the right to tell the truth, period. If people tell the truth about you and your reputation suffers, a branch didn't fall on your car. You parked your car under the branch, then climbed up and sawed the branch off.

I don't think a reputation should have more rights than a human. My position is simply that all humans have the right to do what they like with their bodies and their property as long as it does not stop other people from using their bodies or property. A reputation is what is percieved by other people, and other people clearly have the right to their own bodies and therefore can think what they like about any other person. They can also write their thoughts down on their own property.

If a person has a "right" to a "true" reputation then this would conflict with other rights. Ironically, the reputation would have more rights than the human in your scenario, where the human does not have the right to write what he chooses because of someone else's "right" to a reputation.

Also, who determines what is true and false? There are many things, like economics, that people heavily disagree on what is "true". And, there are other things that matter on definitions. If I call you a liar, and point out that everyone has lied at least once in their life, would I have to pay restitution for any damages? Or, even in my poisoned food example earlier, could I call the food at your store poisoned, and then say I consider sugar a poison?


How about this one--does a person have a right to establish and maintain a bad reputation? Or are reputations like camp--you get trophies just for showing up? Because I say if a person wants a bad reputation, and works at having a bad reputation, he should be free to have a bad reputation--and you're a complete asshole for trying to make people think highly of him.

A reputation is what is percieved by other people. And other people have the right to think what they like about any other person. 200 years ago, if I wrote books against slavery, I would probably have a "bad reputation" among the population. But I clearly don't have a "right" to this bad reputation, because 200 years later I might have a good reputation.

[jtstellar]

it's funny.. you all think you are libertarian philosophers now, but everywhere i look, your theories really aren't very deep and are full of holes. to imply there shouldn't be any court arbitration in regards to reputation, it is to say people can falsely advertise too, because if someone can't harm your reputation and be at fault, it would be silly to "misrepresent" yourself in the same breath and be held accountable. in that world, anybody can falsely advertise against their market competitor's products with all kinds of lies and deceits and you can lie about your own product as well, because presentation doesn't mean anything. if you can misrepresent others to be worse, why not do it to yourself and be better. chief, i have a 10 million dollar house here i want to sell you, contact me.

i think what you're really getting at is "is there an anarchic solution to this" and trust me, even if there were, that question is beyond you, from the depth i am observing here by the thread starter.

[Reece]

it's funny.. you all think you are libertarian philosophers now, but everywhere i look, your theories really aren't very deep and are full of holes. to imply there shouldn't be any court arbitration in regards to reputation, it is to say people can falsely advertise too, because if someone can't harm your reputation and be at fault, it would be silly to "misrepresent" yourself in the same breath and be held accountable. in that world, anybody can falsely advertise against their market competitor's products with all kinds of lies and deceits and you can lie about your own product as well, because presentation doesn't mean anything. if you can misrepresent others to be worse, why not do it to yourself and be better. chief, i have a 10 million dollar house here i want to sell you, contact me.

i think what you're really getting at is "is there an anarchic solution to this" and trust me, even if there were, that question is beyond you, from the depth i am observing here by the thread starter.

It isn't full of holes. You assume it is full of holes.

When you make a trade with someone there is either a direct contract or an implied one. If I make an agreement to sell you 5 pens for 1 dollar and I only give you 4, that is fraud. This would be taken care of with arbitration, as you said.

If I write or tell someone that you are only giving 4 pens instead of 5 (whether this is true or not), I did not make an agreement with anyone, and so I did not commit fraud. I did say earlier that it is likely in a free society that media companies would agree to arbitration, and in that case they would be committing fraud.

I think most of the posts before were on rights though, not on solutions to these problems, so I don't think "is there an anarchic solution to this?" was really the point.

[Occam's Banana]

nvm: wrong thread. :o

[Pericles]

But then telling positive lies about a business should be illegal too. It lowers the market value of their competitors if people run around praising a company's products, telling everybody that they are the best on the market, even though they are not really that good. So Samsung would have a good case for sueing every Apple disciple out there...

I make the best X (when I don't ) is the same as saying all of my competitors are crap, but in a nice way. The point is that propagating falsehood should have a cost associated with it, and truth should be rewarded. The goal of having a free and efficient market, means that market participants need accurate information in order to make voluntary exchanges at the efficient price. Inaccurate information distorts the market and reputation is part of the information that market participants (even if only in the marketplace of ideas) need for good decision making.

[jj-]

I make the best X (when I don't ) is the same as saying all of my competitors are crap, but in a nice way. The point is that propagating falsehood should have a cost associated with it, and truth should be rewarded. The goal of having a free and efficient market, means that market participants need accurate information in order to make voluntary exchanges at the efficient price. Inaccurate information distorts the market and reputation is part of the information that market participants (even if only in the marketplace of ideas) need for good decision making.

Oh, it looks like we have an utilitarian here.

[Shane Harris]

If one stops and thinks about it, the idea that reputation is property is laughable.

I tend to agree.

[Pericles]

Oh, it looks like we have an utilitarian here.

I'm not, but the laws of economics tend to be.:)

[bolil]

Reputation is not property. Reputation, as it is understood, is the estimation of an individual by other individuals. My estimations of George the invader bush or Barack the drone bomber Obama are not their property. A result of their actions, mayhaps, but not their property.

[osan]

I don't understand how laws that punish public slander against a person are authoritarian and anti free-speech.

They aren't. The free speech protections of the First Amendment are intended to protect ones right to express OPINION and assertions of FACT. It does not, however, always protect one whose utterances serve as causes of real damage.

Words have meaning, value, and effect. Not all speech is free. Is my speech free to solicit another to murder my neighbor?


You can say what ever you want but if you intend to publicly state false facts about me ,I should be able to take to court where you can then prove your facts.

Exactly. We are responsible for ALL out actions including our utterances. That last bit has been grossly devalued because language is disregarded as a significant thing while it is the single most significant thing in the lives of human beings though they fail to be aware of it.


The argument I always read here is "Well you should tell your version and counter the lies with your facts".So I should be spending MY TIME countering lies told by my opponents not to mention that once the seed is planted no amount of facts will ever repair the full damage.Also how does one counter the smear on their reputation when the the one telling the lies has an audience of 20-30% of the population MSM and you have no way to address that many people ?

Exactly right. Some douche spreads lies about you, negatively impacting your ability to move in circles of your fellows and onus then resides with YOU to do the damage control? "You shouldn't have worn that dress miss. No wonder you were raped."

People fall for the illusion that words are harmless just because one's arm doesn't come flying immediately off in the wake of someone's speech as the direct result of the utterance as the sole instrument of severance. This is, of course, the assessment not of adults but of men-children incapable of or unwilling to engage their brains sufficiently to determine with propriety the greater truth. It is very rare that speech causes any actual damage, but when it does it should be treated as carefully as any other cause of loss, whether civil or criminal. There are many gray-ish areas, but so what? Difficulty does not justify failure to do one's level best in resolving a situation.


In my country there is only a fine for slandering if you are a private person,if you are a public one or a journalist then you pay a find and must give the person you slandered the same medium from which you did the slandering.This way if Hannity slanders you on TV,and you take him to court you can then go on his show and make your case.

Sounds about right.

I will add this: if a stranger tells me that he is going to kill me, chances are good you he be shot in response. By way of his speech he hase announced an intention and I have RIGHTLY deemed it as serious and credible, all else equal. Have I violated his free speech right by drilling him full of holes? Hell no. I have reacted reasonably to a threat made to my person in defense of same.

WORDS ARE NOT INNOCUOUS. Never forget that. Most people are not even dimly aware of the position words occupy in our daily lives. It is a true horror that passes through our days with impunity and not so much as a first look.

[osan]

There are all sorts of damages that should be ignored by the government. When my GF cheated on me, she caused me great harm.

Hooboy... Um, no. She did not. You caused yourself the harm because you had a choice in how to regard the fact. Being a man about such things is screamingly difficult, but onus still rests with us to choose how we respond to such things.

Sorry, but this example fails all sorts of ways. Just pointing that bit out.


The only types of damage that the government should address are attacks to people's physical integrity, their physical belongings, and violations of contracts.

This is a child's answer, no offense. If I open my yap and the result is the destruction of your ability to make a living you had better be damned sure that you hold in your hands the basis for taking action against me. Of this there is no credible doubt.

[osan]

I will add this: the question of whether a reputation is property may be answered this way or that with equal validity depending on the premises upon which one labors. The question is itself wholly irrelevant. Whether a reputation is property has no bearing on practical matters. What counts is the result. If a causal link can be truthfully and correctly established between an utterance and some damage or other loss, the speech in question is NOT protected, liability is established, and one may then be held to account and make all good restitution.

If I murder a man, makes it any difference that I beat him with a club, stabbed him, used a garrot, shot or poisoned him? The result is the same.

So it may be said of loss and damage: does the instrumentality by which the loss was caused matter? If I take a bat and destroy your shiny new truck, is that any different than if I utter words about you that inflame others to such passion and ire that they do the job in my stead? Does it make any difference that I offer my friend money to do the job for me? Not a whit. My ACTION, and speechis indeed action no less than my fist sending someone's teeth on a journey through their digestive tract, can be shown to have caused a man's property to be destroyed.

Tell me, then, what is the practical difference with reputation? There is none as the results are exactly the same. Consider the example from the lynching days where someone says, "I done heard that bojeeve niggrah Harold Jackson done put his eyes all over Miss Lillywhite". This having been utterly false, yet its utterance having gotten up the ire of a mob and having further resulted in poor Harold's demise can in no credible way be looked upon as protected speech. The question of the ownership of reputation means NOTHING. Reputation, being a system of labeling, is FACT. It exists and it serves a role in social interactions. Ownership has no bearing on that role. Cause and effect, however, most definitely do.

[PierzStyx]

This is a good thread. Been a while since I've seen one on here.

Okay so here are my thoughts. If reputation only the thoughts in someone's head then there would be no rightful way to address them in a legal setting. But it is not. Reputation is an intangible but real exchange among humanity. It is in fact the entire basis for the free market. Positive and negative opinions given voice are what make up your reputation. Negative opinions shouldn't be regulated. But libel and slander go beyond the basis of opinion. Negative opinions are based in some real world experience or set of experiences. Libel and slander are unfactual, that is they are lies. This means they are at heart fraud, not against the producer only but also the consumer. They should be treated as such and be restrained.

[helmuth_hubener]

Holler the next time you visit. I'll buy you a Weber's root beer.
Weber's!

[helmuth_hubener]

Libel and slander are unfactual, that is they are lies. This means they are at heart fraud, not against the producer only but also the consumer. They should be treated as such and be restrained.
I remember I was taught way back in libertarian school as a baby libertarian that libertarianism means "no force, no fraud". So I am certainly sympathetic to the idea that fraud should be outlawed. That is, violence is an acceptable response to fraud. Why? Because fraud is nothing more than a force substitute. Force doesn't have to be overt, to be force nevertheless. For instance:


A thug robs the store through force, beating the clerk and taking the money;
A stick-up man robs the store through threat of force, sticking his gun in the clerk's face;
A shoplifter robs it through stealth, using no actual force;
A fraudster robs it by opening a 90-day line of credit and then never paying his bill.

All of these have actually used force, in a manner of speaking. They have all forced the store into conducting a transaction with them which the store did not want to conduct: giving them something for nothing in return. So really, the libertarian idea can be reduced further from "no force, no fraud" to simply "no force," or put another way "no aggression".

So, now let's consider one more malfeasant and see if he fits in with our list of aggressors above:


A libeler robs the store by starting a newspaper devoted to falsely claiming that its food is poison and its owner an adulterer, thus depriving it of business.

Is this guy different in any way from the first four? Let me first say that he is a bad guy. He is reprehensible. The people who think that libel and slander should be banned because it's reprehensible, I agree with you that it's reprehensible. This is very poor behavior indeed. So he has that in common with them.

But is he in any way different? Well, one difference we can see right off is that, unlike the first four, there is no property exiting the store and entering his grubby hands. So that's a difference. The real damages the store suffers in this case is loss of future income, income that it did not exactly "have coming to it," that is, it didn't own that income. And the property instead remains with the customers who chose not to do business with the store. These customers have a right to their property, no doubt about that, and the store never had a right to it. They are in no way robbing the store owner by ceasing to do business with him. Under libertarianism, they have freedom of association. So the actual real loss that occurs from libel cannot be considered a theft. If it were, the thieves would be the (former) customers, since they are the ones who have the property instead of the store, but they are not thieves, so there was no theft. The store was not robbed.

So put correctly, it becomes

A libeler causes damages to the store by starting a newspaper devoted to falsely claiming that its food is poison and its owner an adulterer, thus depriving it of business.

So that is a major difference. In the first four examples, the store was robbed. In the last, it was not. There was no robbery of physical property. Also, there was no contract broken. So was there any aggression at all that took place in the last example?

I could be wrong, feel free to correct me, but thinking about it carefully, I can see no aggression. Bad behavior, yes. But no aggression.

[Pericles]

Looking at these two examples:

A fraudster robs it by opening a 90-day line of credit and then never paying his bill.

A libeler causes damages to the store by starting a newspaper devoted to falsely claiming that its food is poison and its owner an adulterer, thus depriving it of business.

How was force (aggression) used in the first example? The owner voluntarily extended credit with no coercion involved - yes?

The problem you face is in having to have aggression = force = wrong committed against the property of another.

The difference is that the damage done to the other person is easily quantifiable by a third party, and by the party suffering loss, while in the second example the damage done results in opportunity loss - or to put it in gun control perspective, how can you prove how many lives were saved by being armed? You can't produce a unquestionable number - but a probable range - which could be with a wide variance.

[helmuth_hubener]

How was force (aggression) used in the first example? Because there was a contract broken.
The owner voluntarily extended credit with no coercion involved - yes? Yes, everything was done voluntarily. Until the contract was broken. The fraudster failed to hold up his end of the bargain. He is thus an aggressor.


The problem you face is in having to have aggression = force = wrong committed against the property of another. I would reject the formulation of "wrong committed". I think that a libeler has certainly committed a wrong against his target. The question is whether it is a specific type of wrong called aggression, because only against aggression is it justified to use force.


The difference is that the damage done to the other person is easily quantifiable by a third party, and by the party suffering loss, while in the second example the damage done results in opportunity loss - or to put it in gun control perspective, how can you prove how many lives were saved by being armed? You can't produce a unquestionable number - but a probable range - which could be with a wide variance. Non-quantifiability is a difficulty, but not a show-stopping one. One can't exactly quantify psychic damages to the clerk who got beat up or threatened either, but you can try to come up with something reasonable (which will depend on the conventions of the society). The more -- and only -- important issue is that no actual aggression seems to have occurred. If actual aggression does occur, then even if it's hard to calculate how much restitution is owed, you do your best.

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't think suing for damages based on actual damage to you from libelous acts is any more the government stepping in then suing someone for driving their car through your window and refusing to pay for it. That's why I'm asking what is the window? That is, in this little analogy, what is the actual thing you own which was damaged?

We know the thing you own is not the facts you built up by your hard work. Short of time-travel machines, those cannot be changed.

We know the thing you own is not the literal definition of reputation: others' opinions of you. Because that would be outrageously anti-freedom.

We seem to have narrowed down that the activity you think violates the target's libertarian rights is having KRFDs propagated about him. That seems reasonable. But in the absence of any other reason to consider it a violation of a property right, the only possible way this activity (including KRFDs in one's communication) could be a violation of anyone's property rights is if someone has at least a partial property in the content of everyone's communications. That must be the window. That must be the property that is being damaged/sullied/misused against the wishes of its owner. The defamation target is a part owner of the content of everyone's communications. Otherwise, if not, they have no right whatsoever to control its contents -- unless, again, there arises some other reason to consider it a violation of a property right, such as their conversation being about ordering you killed, or ordering you pizzas (see my reply to AF).

So if you have that other reason, let me know. Or if you have some other proposal about what the window is, let me know. Because the important questions to answer, if I'm going to really get a clear understanding of your thoughts on this, are:

What is the window?
What is a reputation?

If you don't define "reputation," I don't see how we're ever going to come to an agreement, or even an understanding of each other, on whether or not a man has a property right in his reputation. I need a clear, solid, logical, unambiguous explanation of what you think reputation is if we're to proceed much further.

[osan]

Because fraud is nothing more than a force substitute.

A substitute for overt physical force. Fraud is just force of a subtler character.


So really, the libertarian idea can be reduced further from "no force, no fraud" to simply "no force," or put another way "no aggression".

I would rather characterize it at "no trespass" and "no violation". Aggression is acceptable in circumstances.


But is he in any way different? Well, one difference we can see right off is that, unlike the first four, there is no property exiting the store and entering his grubby hands. So that's a difference.

That difference is irrelevant, however. What is salient is the fact that the store owner is damaged by the libel. By the logic of your statement, Robinhood's reputed robbing of the "rich" is somehow fundamentally different from other robberies because the loot passes from the victim's hands into those of the "poor". I see some significant fail in that while it is a difference, it is not a relevant one in terms of the victim's point of view.


The real damages the store suffers in this case is loss of future income, income that it did not exactly "have coming to it," that is, it didn't own that income.

Agreed, but one can model likely losses through a little application of intelligence. If the store was taking in a steady $30K/month for, say, 5 years prior to the libel and those figures thereafter fell precipitously, all else equal the owner probably have a pretty good claim against the libeler.


And the property instead remains with the customers who chose not to do business with the store. These customers have a right to their property, no doubt about that, and the store never had a right to it. They are in no way robbing the store owner by ceasing to do business with him. Under libertarianism, they have freedom of association. So the actual real loss that occurs from libel cannot be considered a theft.

I do not think any lawyer worth a tenth of his guano would try to make that argument. The proper claim would likely be "loss" and "damages".

If it were, the thieves would be the (former) customers, since they are the ones who have the property instead of the store, but they are not thieves, so there was no theft. The store was not robbed.






So that is a major difference. In the first four examples, the store was robbed.

Major, yes, but still irrelevant.


In the last, it was not. There was no robbery of physical property. Also, there was no contract broken. So was there any aggression at all that took place in the last example?

You are too hung up on "aggression". It is a poor term, as commonly used in our circles. The NAP should be much better termed the Non-Violation Principle or the No-Trespass Principle.


I could be wrong, feel free to correct me, but thinking about it carefully, I can see no aggression.

Depends on the precise meaning of the term, but I can see your point. My point is that in such cases, aggression is a non-issue - it has no bearing on the situation, whereas trespass and violation most clearly do.

[osan]

Looking at these two examples:

A fraudster robs it by opening a 90-day line of credit and then never paying his bill.

A libeler causes damages to the store by starting a newspaper devoted to falsely claiming that its food is poison and its owner an adulterer, thus depriving it of business.

How was force (aggression) used in the first example? The owner voluntarily extended credit with no coercion involved - yes?

It is the force of deceit, the means being used by which to secure the consent and compliant action of one who would otherwise object and demur, were they to know the full measure of the truth.


The difference is that the damage done to the other person is easily quantifiable by a third party, and by the party suffering loss, while in the second example the damage done results in opportunity loss - or to put it in gun control perspective, how can you prove how many lives were saved by being armed? You can't produce a unquestionable number - but a probable range - which could be with a wide variance.

Exactly.

[osan]

Because there was a contract broken. Yes, everything was done voluntarily. Until the contract was broken. The fraudster failed to hold up his end of the bargain. He is thus an aggressor.

I wish I could jab you with a cattle prod until you stopped using "aggression" is so poorly considered a manner, which now holds far too many connotations of physicality. He is more the violator and trespasser.

[Wesker1982]

No, AINEC.

[helmuth_hubener]

A substitute for overt physical force. Fraud is just force of a subtler character. Right.




I would rather characterize it at "no trespass" and "no violation". Aggression is acceptable in circumstances. From your last few posts, I think you may be defining aggression somehow differently than me. What do you see as aggression, and what are some circumstances where it would be libertarianly acceptable to use it?

In the meantime, I'll just substitute "invasion" which means the same thing. Trespass means the same thing too in my mind, but you might be using it differently so I will hold off on using that to avoid undue confusion until I know what in the world you're talking about.


That difference is irrelevant, however. What is salient is the fact that the store owner is damaged by the libel. By the logic of your statement, Robinhood's reputed robbing of the "rich" is somehow fundamentally different from other robberies because the loot passes from the victim's hands into those of the "poor". I see some significant fail in that while it is a difference, it is not a relevant one in terms of the victim's point of view.
OK, first of all, just because an action causes "damage" does not qualify one to use force against the actor. Only retaliatory/defensive uses of force are justified, and a given use of force can only be retaliatory/defensive if there was an initial invasion. If I open a grocery store across the street from an existing grocery store, I most assuredly damage that store's business. But I do not invade its property. They can't use force to get "restitution" from me, because there's nothing to restitute. I never invaded their property.

Second of all, yes Robin Hood (and welfare-type distribution schemes, etc., etc.) just changes the robbery from a simple binary invasion to a triangular one: one person being robbed, another robbing, and another receiving the stolen property. Agreed.

Why my point was relevant is because we are ultimately trying to determine if an invasion of any kind took place. Candidate #1 for the type of invasion that may have occurred is robbery. So I go through step by step: did the libeler get the stolen goods? No. Did the (former) customers get the stolen goods? Well, yes and no: they got the goods, but these goods couldn't possibly be stolen, for they belonged rightfully to the customers all along. If they had received the goods from a Robin Hood, then it would be incumbent upon them to return them to the rightful owner, being in possession of stolen property. So since no one anywhere received any stolen goods at any time, that casts doubt on the idea that anything could have possibly been stolen.


Agreed, but one can model likely losses through a little application of intelligence. If the store was taking in a steady $30K/month for, say, 5 years prior to the libel and those figures thereafter fell precipitously, all else equal the owner probably have a pretty good claim against the libeler. A claim for what? This guy didn't own his income. It could stop at any point for any number of reasons and no one would necessarily owe him a penny. He is only owed something if the reason for his loss was that he or his property was invaded.


I do not think any lawyer worth a tenth of his guano would try to make that argument. The proper claim would likely be "loss" and "damages". Osan, I am obviously making arguments of a universal nature about the general nature of reality, ethics, and what is right and wrong as far as using force is concerned. I am not writing about the particularities of the United States legal system and offering lawyerly briefs for a court room. I understand and agree with you completely that yes, any good U.S. defamation lawyer is doubtless going to blow a lot of hot air involving the words "loss" and "damages".



You are too hung up on "aggression". It is a poor term, as commonly used in our circles. The NAP should be much better termed the Non-Violation Principle or the No-Trespass Principle.

My point is that in such cases, aggression is a non-issue - it has no bearing on the situation, whereas trespass and violation most clearly do.It's not at all clear to me, since to me in this philosophical context all three are synonymous. You will just have to explain what you mean.

[Pericles]

I wish I could jab you with a cattle prod until you stopped using "aggression" is so poorly considered a manner, which now holds far too many connotations of physicality. He is more the violator and trespasser.

Ultimately this is why I seldom bother to discuss anything with a Rothbard adherent. Words get stretched way past the breaking point of meaning to arbitrary classification of circumstances.

Common definitions of aggression:



the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights.
any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment.
the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.
hostility toward or attack upon another, whether overt, verbal, or gestural.


The idea that breaking a contract is an aggression stretches to arbitrariness - because breaking a contract is aggression (taking meaning 2 to the loosest possible interpretation), but libel does not meet the test of meaning 4.



As it is almost impossible to agree on defining terms, one can't have a meaningful discussion.

[helmuth_hubener]

Ultimately this is why I seldom bother to discuss anything with a Rothbard adherent. Words get stretched way past the breaking point of meaning to arbitrary classification of circumstances.
...
As it is almost impossible to agree on defining terms, one can't have a meaningful discussion. It's very simple, really. And it's not just Rothbard. All libertarians I am aware of all use the word "aggression" in the same formulaic way: as the opposite of "defense". A use of force (or fraud) can either be "aggressive" or "defensive". If it's aggressive, it's illegitimate. If it's defensive, it's legitimate. What determines whether a use of force or fraud is aggressive is looking at the property lines. If I crossed over the fence line so to speak and projected my force or fraud onto someone else's rightful domain, then it is aggressive. If, on the other hand, they were trespassing on my turf then the force or fraud I use to right that situation is defensive.

This is, to me, the very picture of elegance and simplicity. There can hardly be any misunderstanding when words are used with such crispness and clarity.

[heavenlyboy34]

It's very simple, really. And it's not just Rothbard. All libertarians I am aware of all use the word "aggression" in the same formulaic way: as the opposite of "defense". A use of force (or fraud) can either be "aggressive" or "defensive". If it's aggressive, it's illegitimate. If it's defensive, it's legitimate. What determines whether a use of force or fraud is aggressive is looking at the property lines. If I crossed over the fence line so to speak and projected my force or fraud onto someone else's rightful domain, then it is aggressive. If, on the other hand, they were trespassing on my turf then the force or fraud I use to right that situation is defensive.

This is, to me, the very picture of elegance and simplicity. There can hardly be any misunderstanding when words are used with such crispness and clarity.
+rep

[heavenlyboy34]

As it is almost impossible to agree on defining terms, one can't have a meaningful discussion.
Not really. Trying to pin down proper uses of various terms is common in any circle-and defining terms is critical for a productive discussion. (which is why Rothbard went to such lengths to describe the State in "Anatomy Of The State") Remember when the meaning of "is" was in question? :eek:

Have you ever signed a legal agreement? It's pretty common for lawyers to write in exactly what is meant by the various terms used in that particular agreement. Language is a slippery thing and semantic problems come up very often.

[osan]

From your last few posts, I think you may be defining aggression somehow differently than me. What do you see as aggression, and what are some circumstances where it would be libertarianly acceptable to use it?

We must get back to roots in order to be able to say. I am doing this off the top of my head, stream of consciousness style.

ag·gress [uh-gres]

verb (used without object)
1.to commit the first act of hostility or offense; attack first.

2.to begin to quarrel.


verb (used with object)3.to behave aggressively (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggressive) toward; attack (often followed by upon ): wild animals aggressing their prey.



Origin:
1565–75; < Latin aggressus (past participle of aggredī to attack), equivalent to ag- ag- (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ag-) + gred- (see grade (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grade)) + -tus past participle suffix

And from the Oxford etymological dictionary:

aggress (v.) (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=aggress&allowed_in_frame=0) "attack," 1714, back-formation from aggression (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=aggression&allowed_in_frame=0), but used earlier with a sense of "approach" (1570s) and in this sense from French aggresser, from Late Latinaggressare, frequentative of Latin aggredi "to approach, attack."



Note the timbre of the word, how it carries with it the connotation of violence, whether overtly physical or verbal.

As I have maintained consistently, words have meanings and their original meanings should be adhered to in discussions such as this because using them as terms of art in these sorts of exchanges serves only to reduce clarity and obfuscate and thereby hinder understanding.

Therefore, to my way of seeing it, aggression is any act carrying with it outright violence, such as punching, grabbing, shoving etc., implied violence such as threats that would include, "I'm going to kick your ass" and "i'll kill you", or violent tone in speech. In the latter, one may adopt a very aggressive tone while never using a single word or phrase directly overtly suggesting violence. Imagine someone in your face, screaming "I'm going take you to court and sue you until you have nothing left." That is certainly aggressive - which is to say, suggestive of aggression.

Fraud, on the other hand, is not an overtly violent attack upon one by another. It is almost always of a subtle nature. The results can be devastating, as we all know, but they are still different from those of open violence and even violent tone. Aggression in the latter sense given in the previous paragraph can be used as an element in the commission of fraud and in this we see there are certainly gradations in certain, possibly uncommon, cases. But in general I believe it is to the greater advantage of understanding that we avoid the more artfully inclined usages of "aggression" as it tends to overly blur certain boundaries as here noted.

This is why I disagree with the term "non-aggression principle". There are, in fact, times where aggression is indeed justifiable such as when I preemptively attack a gang of hoods who have succeeded in communicating in subtle terms their intention to do me bodily harm. I am not obliged by any moral standard to stand by and wait for a fist to fly or a weapon to be produced before taking defensive action. Yet this obligation is very directly implied by the common formulations of the NAP. To state that such subtle and implied threats are aggression and that therefore I am responding to aggression is in my view sloppily simplistic, perhaps due to intellectual lassitude or an overbearing and thereby unsound drive to use fewer words and conceptual elements in a framework than are actually necessary for it to be complete and correct with rigor.

Given this, the non-aggression principle as commonly stated is fundamentally flawed in this way and we should kick it to the curb. The terms, "non-violation principle", or the "principle of non-trespass" do greatly superior service to the broader concept they are intended to convey because they do not speak falsely of the universal wrongness of "aggression", which we clearly see is not the case. They speak of the wrongness of violation or, equivalently, trespass. It is unacceptable to violate or trespass against another. It is at times acceptable to aggress against them, albeit in very tightly circumscribed cases.

In my opinion it is important to tune our words for precision because future generations may one day depend upon what we commit to paper today and there should be as little wiggle room as possible left for mis-interpretation.


In the meantime, I'll just substitute "invasion" which means the same thing. Trespass means the same thing too in my mind, but you might be using it differently so I will hold off on using that to avoid undue confusion until I know what in the world you're talking about.


Invasion, trespass, violation... yes these are all acceptable, though invasion is again a bit too narrow for my pleasure.


OK, first of all, just because an action causes "damage" does not qualify one to use force against the actor.

I may find this acceptable, depending upon what you mean in greater specificity. As stated, one is free to let his imagination run wildly.


Only retaliatory/defensive uses of force are justified, and a given use of force can only be retaliatory/defensive if there was an initial invasion.

Maybe. Once again you speak a bit too broadly for safety's sake. There are elements here that need to be factored in regarding specific circumstances. These include, but are not limited to proximity and temporal factors. For example, if I see you murder my child but cannot stop you, am I morally justified in hunting you at a later time and taking your life? I say most certainly yes. The "law" says otherwise. The "law" is an ass. I have NO problem whatsoever with the concept of vengeance, particularly in such extreme cases. It is eminently justifiable from a moral standpoint, and I will go so far as to assert that the prohibition against it in "law" fails miserably on its face due to the moral position underpinning it. That prohibition is based in nothing less than the utter disparagement of an individual's right to justly look after his own interests. The "law" says you have no such right, that it is only the purview of the "state" to dispense justice. This is a great and violently steaming pile of bullshit that has never once been validly demonstrated. This is because no such demonstration can be credibly made. All such so-called "arguments" have been based on pure assertion alone or those supported by savagely twisted reasoning that has remained unsuccessfully challenged for no other reason than that the courts who have pronounced it so have at their disposal the instruments of violence to effectively squelch any meaningful action in contravention of their crapulous declarations. That, my friend, has nothing to do with moral rectitude and everything with blind ignorance, intellectual lassitude, and good old fashioned corruption.


If I open a grocery store across the street from an existing grocery store, I most assuredly damage that store's business.

You're reaching here and it is not working. If you are engaging in non-criminal business transactions, any loss of business a competitor sustains because your products and services are preferred over theirs cannot in any reasonable and credible way be taken as damage. It is the simple result of someone offering superior choices. You competitor may well be free to change his business model in order to adapt to the new market reality that your store brought to the environment. They have a CHOICE, whereas if I crack you over the head with a bat and steal your wallet...


But I do not invade its property. They can't use force to get "restitution" from me, because there's nothing to restitute. I never invaded their property.

True, but you mix apples and oranges. Conducting superior business is not an aggression, invasion, violation, or trespass by even the wildest plausible stretches of the imagination. Shit changes and change cannot be avoided. Did the advent of automobiles violate the rights of those who brokered horses as means of transport? Not in any conceivable way. Gotta keep your ducks and your geese in separate pens, my friend. :)


Once again, words matter and they should be chosen with GREAT care in matter such as this. Making mountains of mole-hills and vise-versa is a very bad idea when philosophizing. People disregard the significance of this and it is precisely because of this that our world is in the shit-can and our nation is on the verge of failure, standing to take all hope of human liberty to the grave with it.

[osan]

It's very simple, really. And it's not just Rothbard. All libertarians I am aware of all use the word "aggression" in the same formulaic way: as the opposite of "defense". A use of force (or fraud) can either be "aggressive" or "defensive". If it's aggressive, it's illegitimate. If it's defensive, it's legitimate. What determines whether a use of force or fraud is aggressive is looking at the property lines. If I crossed over the fence line so to speak and projected my force or fraud onto someone else's rightful domain, then it is aggressive. If, on the other hand, they were trespassing on my turf then the force or fraud I use to right that situation is defensive.

This is, to me, the very picture of elegance and simplicity. There can hardly be any misunderstanding when words are used with such crispness and clarity.

Except that it is simplistic, and that is rarely a good thing. In this case, I submit that the result is the precise opposite of crispness and clarity. You are confusing those with artful elegance, which has its place, but not in subject areas where rigor is the paramount consideration. Screw elegance - I want precision, clarity, completeness, and correctness. Form must follow function, and by about 100 paces.

[helmuth_hubener]

Dear Osan,

Other than a very tedious vocubularical point, you raise no objections to the substance of my opinion whatsoever. So we are in agreement?

As a note -- a very minor note -- I do not agree that aggression is the wrong word. I think it is a perfect word. It is the most perfect opposite of "defense", and thus conveys exacly what I want to convey. Consider "light" vs. "dark". Were I to use these terms, you could find an array of definitions of "dark" in the dictionary and thus object to its usage, saying "Note the timbre of the word 'dark', how it carries with it the connotation of danger, the unknown, evil, and even malevolence". I feel this is what you have done in your objection to the word "aggression". But regardless, we have a very easy solution: simply substitute "trespass" for it in all my previous posts, and if you are a consistent libertarian in what you define as trespass, it will still mean exactly the same thing to me, exactly what I want it to mean, and it will mean the exactly right thing for you too, and thus we will have an instance of perfect communication.

~~~

Are there any further arguments to be made against, or for -- especially for -- the proposition that a man has a property right to his reputation, or perhaps that he has one in the content of everyone's communications?

[sailingaway]

I think his true good reputation is his property. It is something both measurable and hard to create without diligence. And easy to destroy, without protection.

[helmuth_hubener]

I think his true good reputation is his property. It is something both measurable and hard to create without diligence. And easy to destroy, without protection. But what is it?

[torchbearer]

your identity is your own, and if someone is spreading lies that tarnish your identity, they are committing a fraud. a fraud to the people they are lying to, and damages to you because your rep is what you base your very word on.

[helmuth_hubener]

your identity is your own, and if someone is spreading lies that tarnish your identity, they are committing a fraud. a fraud to the people they are lying to, and damages to you because your rep is what you base your very word on. I am against fraud. It depends on the lie whether it is fraud. Not all lying constitutes a fraudulent trespass. I have just decided that the spreading of identity-tarnishing lies could be fraud, under certain circumstances. The circumstance that comes to mind is if the lie was that you were me -- that is, you are actually claiming my identity as your own. So someone was wanting and trying to deal with me in some way, and you are instead interloping and dealing with him on my behalf without my knowledge nor permission. For instance, you are putting my name and logo on your soup cans, thus defrauding the buyer of the soup who thought he was buying mine. Now I think it may be important to realize that the person being trespassed against in this case is not me, but is the soup buyer. I was not involved in the transaction at all. None of my property was trespassed against.

[torchbearer]

I am against fraud. It depends on the lie whether it is fraud. Not all lying constitutes a fraudulent trespass. I have just decided that the spreading of identity-tarnishing lies could be fraud, under certain circumstances. The circumstance that comes to mind is if the lie was that you were me -- that is, you are actually claiming my identity as your own. So someone was wanting and trying to deal with me in some way, and you are instead interloping and dealing with him on my behalf without my knowledge nor permission. For instance, you are putting my name and logo on your soup cans, thus defrauding the buyer of the soup who thought he was buying mine. Now I think it may be important to realize that the person being trespassed against in this case is not me, but is the soup buyer. I was not involved in the transaction at all. None of my property was trespassed against.

or if I went around telling everyone you fuck lil' children. (and it was false)
I would be telling people you were something that you were not. that is fraud.

[osan]

Dear Osan,

Other than a very tedious vocubularical point, you raise no objections to the substance of my opinion whatsoever. So we are in agreement?

You write as if this were a minor point. It is not. Your expressed position indicates an unsound discounting of language. Grand error.

[helmuth_hubener]

You write as if this were a minor point. It is not. Your expressed position indicates an unsound discounting of language. Grand error.

Yeah, right. Yet you yourself used "trespass", "violation", and "invasion" as synonyms, as if they all mean the same thing, when quite obviously they are different words which may have different connotations and sets of meanings. You're using the language wrong! How dare you! Call the language police! Wait, there is a central authority that determines language... right?

[helmuth_hubener]

or if I went around telling everyone you fuck lil' children. (and it was false)
I would be telling people you were something that you were not. that is fraud. Who would be being defrauded? Of what property is he / are they being defrauded?

[torchbearer]

Who would be being defrauded? Of what property is he / are they being defrauded?


the implication being that a person can be isolated from trade with everyone else. its an act of aggression by fraud.

[heavenlyboy34]

or if I went around telling everyone you fuck lil' children. (and it was false)
I would be telling people you were something that you were not. that is fraud.

I'd call that slander, not fraud.

[helmuth_hubener]

the implication being that a person can be isolated from trade with everyone else. its an act of aggression by fraud. I don't have a right to trade with anyone, though. Everyone has a right to refuse to trade with me. Ostracism is perfectly acceptable under libertarianism. "Isolating me from trade" is not aggression trespass. If that's true, and I think it is, it is hard to see how merely inducing others to "isolate me from trade" could possibly be trespass.

If it's OK for you to do it (stop trading), and it's OK for them to do it, how come you causing them to do it is suddenly a violation of property rights?

[helmuth_hubener]

I'd call that slander, not fraud. The point is: Is slander fraud? That's the whole point we're examining here.

[UMULAS]

.....