KInsella and Thin Air

[George H. Smith]

I appreciate your concern, but I frankly don't give a shit.

George,

Say what?

So which is it?

You appreciate my concern?

Or you don't give a shit?

Actually, I'm didn't do that just for you. I would have done the same thing for anyone who posts here. I don't want this forum to be used for damaging people with libel, play-acting or not, whether protested or not.

Michael

I don't give a shit in the sense that I don't care what Ted says. The more he goes on in this manner, the more he is harming himself rather than me. He started this thread, and if his brain implodes upon encountering my fairly mild criticisms -- well, that speaks volumes about either his intellectual ability or his intellectual integrity. Take your pick.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Fine, Ted. If my terminology overloads your pea-brain, I should have said "legally actionable" -- even though, in libertarian terms, there is absolutely no difference between "legally actionable" and "illegal."

Meanwhile, if you ever get your brain farts under control, let me know, and maybe we can have a reasonable conversation without your stinking up the place.

I used to think you were a reasonable and intelligent guy. It didn't take long for you to ruin that illusion.

Ghs

You are the one who holds the irrational position that freedom of speech countenances libel and slander. My reductio ad absurdum of that view was quite reasonable and quite intelligent.

Your reductio violates your own principles. If someone claimed that murder does not violate the victim's rights, would you murder that person in order to make a point, in the name of a reductio? That, in essence, is what you have been doing. So much for your principles. You cannot be trusted to adhere to the principles you claim to believe in. Are there any other damaging things you care to reveal about yourself?

I take it from your reaction that you don't like how your own theory works out in real life.

Unfortunately perhaps, I know of no way to transform the antics of morons into a violation of rights.

And if you had facts you would need to resort to name calling.

Let's see...So far you have called me a pedophile, a rapist, and a few other things. Your whining is rich, truly rich.

Nevertheless, your use of "pea-brain" and "fart" is simply adorable.

Thank you. I have always had a soft spot for adorable morons.

And no, you are still absolutely wrong to treat a civil suit and a criminal prosecution as the same thing, and you know it, or you wouldn't be so annoyed.

Has it occurred to you that, in a libertarian society, an action would not be legally actionable unless it were also illegal to begin with? But I don't mean to overload your adorable pea-brain with complicated issues like this.

Ghs

[nskinsella]

You are the one who holds the irrational position that freedom of speech countenances libel and slander.

It's got nothing to do with "freedom of speech." It's not as if we say, (a) libertarianism upholds a right to freedom of speech, and (B) libel law violates this.

In fact there is no right to free speech, as Rothbard showed in Ethics of Liberty (see here and here). There are only property rights. The problem with libel law is that it is is *aggression* against property.

[BaalChatzaf]

Has it occurred to you that, in a libertarian society, an action would not be legally actionable unless it were also illegal to begin with? But I don't mean to overload your adorable pea-brain with complicated issues like this.

Ghs

Not all actions taken to court are -legal actions-. Some are actions of equity. An act has been committed that causes a party damages but the act is not per se illegal. Hence the damaged party makes a claim for compensation. Courts of equity operate with a different set of rules for evidence than courts that treat breaches of the law.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

Has it occurred to you that, in a libertarian society, an action would not be legally actionable unless it were also illegal to begin with? But I don't mean to overload your adorable pea-brain with complicated issues like this.

Ghs

Not all actions taken to court are -legal actions-. Some are actions of equity. An act has been committed that causes a party damages but the act is not per se illegal. Hence the damaged party makes a claim for compensation. Courts of equity operate with a different set of rules for evidence than courts that treat breaches of the law.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Courts of equity have nothing to do with this issue. The issue at hand is -- or was, until Ted succumbed to fits of mental drooling -- whether libel and slander involve a violation of someone's rights. A libertarian government is authorized to use force only against someone who violates rights in some manner, so unless libel and slander can be shown to be rights-violating activities, a government has no legitimate jurisdiction in this sphere.

Whether there would be a role for courts of equity in a libertarian society is an interesting question, but, as I said, this is irrelevant to the issue of libel and slander laws. If libel and slander actually do violate rights, then they are criminal actions in the libertarian sense, just as stealing someone's property is criminal. There is no theoretical distinction between criminal and civil law here, because, in libertarian theory, all criminal actions ultimately violate the rights of individuals. The current notion of criminal law, according to which the victim is society or the state ("offenses against the people"), has no legitimate place in a libertarian theory of law.

Ghs

[sjw]

Courts of equity have nothing to do with this issue. The issue at hand is -- or was, until Ted succumbed to fits of mental drooling -- whether libel and slander involve a violation of someone's rights. A libertarian government is authorized to use force only against someone who violates rights in some manner, so unless libel and slander can be shown to be rights-violating activities, a government has no legitimate jurisdiction in this sphere.

What about libel and slander that attribute criminal activity to you, cause you be investigated by the police, and possibly send you to jail?

I think it's good to have reasonable libel/slander laws. If somebody maliciously maligns and it causes you real harm, then they should owe you damages. Obviously such a thing can be taken way too far, so I think those two premises must be proven beyond any doubt: that the person maliciously, purposefully lied in order to cause harm, and that the person actually caused material harm.

Shayne

[sjw]

You are the one who holds the irrational position that freedom of speech countenances libel and slander.

It's got nothing to do with "freedom of speech." It's not as if we say, (a) libertarianism upholds a right to freedom of speech, and (B) libel law violates this.

In fact there is no right to free speech, as Rothbard showed in Ethics of Liberty (see here and here). There are only property rights. The problem with libel law is that it is is *aggression* against property.

Is Ethics of Liberty the best justification for property as the basis of all rights? Or does Hoppe do a better job in your opinion in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism?

Basing all rights on property rights is an interesting construct but I don't think it works. One certainly has a right to take any action, including speech, that does not interfere with the equal rights of another. So yes, one has a right to freedom of speech, excepting actions of or related to that speech that interfere with the equal rights of others.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Courts of equity have nothing to do with this issue. The issue at hand is -- or was, until Ted succumbed to fits of mental drooling -- whether libel and slander involve a violation of someone's rights. A libertarian government is authorized to use force only against someone who violates rights in some manner, so unless libel and slander can be shown to be rights-violating activities, a government has no legitimate jurisdiction in this sphere.

What about libel and slander that attribute criminal activity to you, cause you be investigated by the police, and possibly send you to jail?

In that case, the police have violated your rights. Instead of seeking to curtail the right of free speech, you should be more concerned with reforming the police department in question so that it doesn't act on the basis of personal smears, rumors, and baseless allegations.

As I noted previously, it is a different matter if someone specifically files false charges against you with the police. This is a concrete action, not merely speech, and it falls in the same general category as hiring a hit man to kill someone.

I think it's good to have reasonable libel/slander laws. If somebody maliciously maligns and it causes you real harm, then they should owe you damages. Obviously such a thing can be taken way too far, so I think those two premises must be proven beyond any doubt: that the person maliciously, purposefully lied in order to cause harm, and that the person actually caused material harm.

What specific right of mine has been violated? The right not to be lied about? The right not to have others think ill of me? The right not to be unfairly "harmed" by others, even when no coercion has been used and when "harmed" can mean almost anything?

A free society comes with certain risks. If we abandon the nonaggression principle and start advocating that certain risky activities be made illegal -- namely, those that we personally don't like or want to endure -- then we have surrendered the principle of individual freedom and might as well give up the fight.

Ghs

[nskinsella]

Courts of equity have nothing to do with this issue. The issue at hand is -- or was, until Ted succumbed to fits of mental drooling -- whether libel and slander involve a violation of someone's rights. A libertarian government is authorized to use force only against someone who violates rights in some manner, so unless libel and slander can be shown to be rights-violating activities, a government has no legitimate jurisdiction in this sphere.

What about libel and slander that attribute criminal activity to you, cause you be investigated by the police, and possibly send you to jail?

I think it's good to have reasonable libel/slander laws. If somebody maliciously maligns and it causes you real harm, then they should owe you damages. Obviously such a thing can be taken way too far, so I think those two premises must be proven beyond any doubt: that the person maliciously, purposefully lied in order to cause harm, and that the person actually caused material harm.

Shayne

There are no "reasonable" libel and slander laws. Law's goal is not to stop "harm", whether "real" or not. ONly to stop aggression.

As for the criminal activity stuff--well what in the world has that to do with libel? HEll, let's say you tell the cops the TRUTH -- that I am selling cocaine. and that ends up getting me put in jail. I'd say that you have aided and abetted the criminal gang. You are playing a causal role in my being aggressed against by the mafia known as the state. It is irrelevant whether it's true or not (libel or not).

And if you get on the stand and LIE and say I raped you, and I'm convicted--again, you are violating my rights because you are playing a causal role in my being aggressed against. NOt merely "harmed." There is nothing wrong with "harming" people--I can "steal" "your" girlfriend or "your" customers by competing with you. So what.

[sjw]

And if you get on the stand and LIE and say I raped you, and I'm convicted--again, you are violating my rights because you are playing a causal role in my being aggressed against. NOt merely "harmed." There is nothing wrong with "harming" people--I can "steal" "your" girlfriend or "your" customers by competing with you. So what.

It sounds quite deranged to say that it's not wrong to lie in order to get a woman, customers, or employees. Is your position that you find nothing immoral in such acts? Or perhaps you were just trying to say that it's not harm when somebody is better than you. Well that's true, but in that case it wouldn't have been a malicious lie aimed at harming you that caused harm, it would have been the facts of reality as understood by the woman, customers, or employees.

I don't consider it "harm" when someone is better. I consider it harm when someone maliciously lies in order to cause harm and then it actually does cause harm. If you want to claim that this concept of harm is non-objective you can't do it by fiat; your putting the word "harm" in quotes does not magically turn it into non-objective not-harm.

Shayne

[nskinsella]

And if you get on the stand and LIE and say I raped you, and I'm convicted--again, you are violating my rights because you are playing a causal role in my being aggressed against. NOt merely "harmed." There is nothing wrong with "harming" people--I can "steal" "your" girlfriend or "your" customers by competing with you. So what.

It sounds quite deranged to say that it's not wrong to lie in order to get a woman, customers, or employees. Is your position that you find nothing immoral in such acts? Or perhaps you were just trying to say that it's not harm when somebody is better than you. Well that's true, but in that case it wouldn't have been a malicious lie aimed at harming you that caused harm, it would have been the facts of reality as understood by the woman, customers, or employees.

I don't consider it "harm" when someone is better. I consider it harm when someone maliciously lies in order to cause harm and then it actually does cause harm. If you want to claim that this concept of harm is non-objective you can't do it by fiat; your putting the word "harm" in quotes does not magically turn it into non-objective not-harm.

Shayne

Your language here is not very careful; lots of loose langauge and metaphors.

I never said it's okay to lie to get someone's girlfriend or customers--though it is not necessarily a rights violation. I was giving an example of "stealing" someone's girlfriend (without lying) or customers (by competing) to show that you can harm someone without it being a rights violation. Harm is not what libertarianism is about. SEe my review of Patrick Burke's No Harm when I pointed this out previousyl. J.C. Lester makes a similar mistake in his Leviathan book when he goes on about "imposing costs". Nonsense.

[sjw]

Courts of equity have nothing to do with this issue. The issue at hand is -- or was, until Ted succumbed to fits of mental drooling -- whether libel and slander involve a violation of someone's rights. A libertarian government is authorized to use force only against someone who violates rights in some manner, so unless libel and slander can be shown to be rights-violating activities, a government has no legitimate jurisdiction in this sphere.

What about libel and slander that attribute criminal activity to you, cause you be investigated by the police, and possibly send you to jail?

In that case, the police have violated your rights. Instead of seeking to curtail the right of free speech, you should be more concerned with reforming the police department in question so that it doesn't act on the basis of personal smears, rumors, and baseless allegations.

As I noted previously, it is a different matter if someone specifically files false charges against you with the police. This is a concrete action, not merely speech, and it falls in the same general category as hiring a hit man to kill someone.

So, if a woman tells her husband she was raped (but it was a lie) and the husband goes to the police, then the husband is liable, not the woman? I guess you could construe the woman as taking out a contract with her husband who takes one out with the police? Seems simpler to just blame the woman for lying and then for the consequences the lie created. Cause and effect.

What specific right of mine has been violated? The right not to be lied about? The right not to have others think ill of me? The right not to be unfairly "harmed" by others, even when no coercion has been used and when "harmed" can mean almost anything?

A free society comes with certain risks. If we abandon the nonaggression principle and start advocating that certain risky activities be made illegal -- namely, those that we personally don't like or want to endure -- then we have surrendered the principle of individual freedom and might as well give up the fight.

Ghs

I certainly would not advocate abandoning the non-aggression principle. I think an argument can be made that libel and slander can cross the line into aggression.

No, I have not made that argument, yet. Nor do I think it is completely necessary to make the argument, because I think we have the right to form governments that have certain laws that go beyond natural law, when the people have consented to those terms (which is to say, they don't really go beyond natural law). You can live in under a government that permits harmful libel/slander, and I can choose to live under a different government.

I was walking down the sidewalk the other day a few days after a snowstorm. Several of my neighbors had neglected to shovel the snow. My preference would be to live in a homeowners association that, 36 hours after a snowstorm, shoveled all the neglected walks, and then charged the neglectful homeowner a reasonable cleanup fee to cover the cost of labor. I have no natural right to this, unless there's a contract between all the neighbors. I would prefer to live in such a neighborhood. Similarly, I would prefer to live in a town where libel/slander of a very well-defined sort were illegal (if not by natural law, then by contract).

Shayne

[nskinsella]

Courts of equity have nothing to do with this issue. The issue at hand is -- or was, until Ted succumbed to fits of mental drooling -- whether libel and slander involve a violation of someone's rights. A libertarian government is authorized to use force only against someone who violates rights in some manner, so unless libel and slander can be shown to be rights-violating activities, a government has no legitimate jurisdiction in this sphere.

What about libel and slander that attribute criminal activity to you, cause you be investigated by the police, and possibly send you to jail?

In that case, the police have violated your rights. Instead of seeking to curtail the right of free speech, you should be more concerned with reforming the police department in question so that it doesn't act on the basis of personal smears, rumors, and baseless allegations.

As I noted previously, it is a different matter if someone specifically files false charges against you with the police. This is a concrete action, not merely speech, and it falls in the same general category as hiring a hit man to kill someone.

So, if a woman tells her husband she was raped (but it was a lie) and the husband goes to the police, then the husband is liable, not the woman? I guess you could construe the woman as taking out a contract with her husband who takes one out with the police? Seems simpler to just blame the woman for lying and then for the consequences the lie created. Cause and effect.

What specific right of mine has been violated? The right not to be lied about? The right not to have others think ill of me? The right not to be unfairly "harmed" by others, even when no coercion has been used and when "harmed" can mean almost anything?

A free society comes with certain risks. If we abandon the nonaggression principle and start advocating that certain risky activities be made illegal -- namely, those that we personally don't like or want to endure -- then we have surrendered the principle of individual freedom and might as well give up the fight.

Ghs

I certainly would not advocate abandoning the non-aggression principle. I think an argument can be made that libel and slander can cross the line into aggression.

No, I have not made that argument, yet.

no, you have not; it's a mystery why you think it "can be made."

[sjw]

Your language here is not very careful; lots of loose langauge and metaphors.

Actually, your statements are not very careful. Lots of unjustified assertions. A proper argument has reasons, as opposed to fiat declarations that such and such is a "metaphor", "loose language", "not very careful", etc.

The actual case here seems to be that how I am using the word "harm" is confusing/unclear -- to you. The proper mode of discussion is to question me concerning how I distinguish the cases that to you seem ambiguous, as opposed to attributing your confusion to me.

Shayne

[nskinsella]

Your language here is not very careful; lots of loose langauge and metaphors.

Actually, your statements are not very careful. Lots of unjustified assertions. A proper argument has reasons, as opposed to fiat declarations that such and such is a "metaphor", "loose language", "not very careful", etc.

The actual case here seems to be that how I am using the word "harm" is confusing/unclear -- to you. The proper mode of discussion is to question me concerning how I distinguish the cases that to you seem ambiguous, as opposed to attributing your confusion to me.

Shayne

No, "harm" is a clear concept; it's just that it's clear to clear-thinking libertrians that causing harm is not unlibertarian!!!

[sjw]

no, you have not; it's a mystery why you think it "can be made."

Well, I see a certain set of premises that could lead to the argument that libel/slander of a certain kind can be construed as a natural rights violation. It's just a lead, I don't have the full argument, nor am I fully convinced that it can be made. I suspect it can be.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Have you guys read anything by Bernays?

I see your entire premise excluding the effects of propaganda (now called "public relations") on large masses of people.

I know this is a detour, but the premise is the same.

Lynch mobs don't exist because people rationally decide to violate the rights of someone. They get lathered up with emotions driven by psychological triggers. And there are ways to do that with entire countries. There are techniques for this.

I believe one of the reasons libertarianism is not spread to the mainstream by libertarians, but instead by people like Glenn Beck, is because he knows about the techniques and knows how to use them, while libertarians don't and sometimes deny that such techniques even.work.

One of the things my research has been taking me into is how well the Left is familiar with persuasion techniques. Visit any site on animal rights, environmental issues, global warming, minority causes in general, unions, etc., and you will not only find articles on how to put together influence campaigns, you will also find reference to what books they should read on these things. (A favorite, for example, is Doing Democracy: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements by Bill Moyer› JoAmn McAllister, Mary Lou Finley and Steven Soifer.)

Although a pure democracy is nothing but an exalted lynch mob and a government can be devised--like a republic--that deals with this problem, no government can possibly exist for long if the majority of its citizens are hostile to it. Not even a dictatorship. If the people are indifferent to supportive, the government--whatever it is--generally stays. But all you need for a libertarian government to fall (if one should ever come to pass) is one good propaganda campaign to make people hostile to it.

But of course, the propagandists will be exercising their rights--that is until they jockey themselves into a position of power where they can take the rights from everyone.

Here's a book that gives a particularly nasty and cancerous partial blueprint according to what I have been told. I have not yet read it, but it is on my reading list.

Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein

This is the same Cass Sunstein who is Obama's regulatory czar. He's the guy who is writing the rules that will be used by the cops as the reason they show up at our doorsteps regarding health care, financial matters, etc. (essentially, the new laws passed by the federal government).

One of the reasons I am bringing this up is that propaganda falls into the same category as libel: public persuasion that leads to damages and violations of rights.

In other words, if these techniques encourage large groups of people to do stupid things and accept the unacceptable, they also work in encouraging large groups of people to trash someone's reputation or scapegoat him. This is basically where I see libel.

I think this whole issue needs a better treatment than simple dismissal.

Michael

[sjw]

No, "harm" is a clear concept; it's just that it's clear to clear-thinking libertrians that causing harm is not unlibertarian!!!

I see. Your point is that all interference with my rights causes harm, but that not all harm is an interference with my rights. Sure. You're making a trifling semantic point though. It's easy to rephrase whatever was causing you heartburn in terms of non-initiation of force. If I say someone owes damages then the implication is that I think you interfered.

Not that I disagree with your trifling point if I were trying to write a scholarly paper, but it's unclear thinking for you to conclude that my wording implies unclear thinking.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

What specific right of mine has been violated? The right not to be lied about? The right not to have others think ill of me? The right not to be unfairly "harmed" by others, even when no coercion has been used and when "harmed" can mean almost anything?

A free society comes with certain risks. If we abandon the nonaggression principle and start advocating that certain risky activities be made illegal -- namely, those that we personally don't like or want to endure -- then we have surrendered the principle of individual freedom and might as well give up the fight.

Ghs

I certainly would not advocate abandoning the non-aggression principle. I think an argument can be made that libel and slander can cross the line into aggression.

If you manage to pry open that Pandora's Box, good luck with closing it once again to prevent all kinds of statist possibilities from leaping out. The stretching of "rights violations" to include all manner of nonaggressive activities was a major factor in the death of classical liberalism. We are living with the consequences today. But I will reserve judgment until I see your argument.

No, I have not made that argument, yet. Nor do I think it is completely necessary to make the argument, because I think we have the right to form governments that have certain laws that go beyond natural law, when the people have consented to those terms (which is to say, they don't really go beyond natural law). You can live in under a government that permits harmful libel/slander, and I can choose to live under a different government.

You have no right to "choose" a government that violates the rights of other people. Consent is irrelevant here, unless every member of a society expressly agrees to abide by certain laws regarding libel and slander. In this case, the "crime" would not be libel and slander per se, but breach of contract. Good luck with that social contract.

Ghs

[sjw]

You have no right to "choose" a government that violates the rights of other people. Consent is irrelevant here, unless every member of a society expressly agrees to abide by certain laws regarding libel and slander. In this case, the "crime" would not be libel and slander per se, but breach of contract. Good luck with that social contract.

Ghs

I'm a strict consensualist, so yes, everyone would have to agree, and yes, it would be considered breach of contract, like speeding on a road you agreed not to speed on.

If you manage to pry open that Pandora's Box, good luck with closing it once again to prevent all kinds of statist possibilities from leaping out. The stretching of "rights violations" to include all manner of nonaggressive activities was a major factor in the death of classical liberalism. We are living with the consequences today. But I will reserve judgment until I see your argument.

I agree with this, but on the other hand, every system of justice (even ancap systems) can become deranged when the people implementing the system become deranged.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

Question(s):

What about a sign on your property, say front lawn, that says (although it is not true):

"My neighbour Joe next door is a wife-beater and child-rapist"

1 - Harm?

2 - Free Speech?

3 - Aggression?

4 - Rights Violation?

5 - Illegal?

[nskinsella]

Question(s):

What about a sign on your property, say front lawn, that says (although it is not true):

"My neighbour Joe next door is a wife-beater and child-rapist"

1 - Harm?

2 - Free Speech?

3 - Aggression?

4 - Rights Violation?

5 - Illegal?

These hypos are never specified in enough detail. Not enough context. Too much rationalist call for armchair libertarian theorizing. This is why there are courts that consider actual details and all the relevant contextual aspects. I commend my article Causation and Aggression.

[sjw]

I commend my article Causation and Aggression.

I printed off a copy to read later, glancing at the third paragraph though I see a very bizarre definition. Human action is defined as "intentional intervention in the physical world," where as behavior ("mere behavior") is a person's unintentional movements not aimed at any purpose, plan or design.

This is very philosophically suspicious. Action is action. Human action can be intentional or not, conscious, semiconscious, automatic, internal, external, etc. But it's action, all of it. The concept of intentional harmful consequences -- i.e., the results of an action, not the action itself -- is important because it relates to predicting future harmful action, but the concept of intentional action as such does not seem to be a very legally useful addition. It is only when we evaluate the action (picking up an apple (an action) vs. stealing it (an evaluation)) that we can attribute something meaningful in a legal context.

Shayne

[nskinsella]

I commend my article Causation and Aggression.

I printed off a copy to read later, glancing at the third paragraph though I see a very bizarre definition. Human action is defined as "intentional intervention in the physical world," where as behavior ("mere behavior") is a person's unintentional movements not aimed at any purpose, plan or design.

This is very philosophically suspicious. Action is action. Human action can be intentional or not, conscious, semiconscious, automatic, internal, external, etc. But it's action, all of it. The concept of intentional harmful consequences -- i.e., the results of an action, not the action itself -- is important because it relates to predicting future harmful action, but the concept of intentional action as such does not seem to be a very legally useful addition. It is only when we evaluate the action (picking up an apple (an action) vs. stealing it (an evaluation)) that we can attribute something meaningful in a legal context.

Shayne

Let's not reinvent the wheel. (typical of engineers). Just read Mises, with which you are obviously unfamiliar.

[sjw]

Let's not reinvent the wheel. (typical of engineers). Just read Mises, with which you are obviously unfamiliar.

I notice a pattern here. When pressed on any point, Stephan drops a big pile of documentation instead of actually defending his idea (typical of lawyers). Should the concept as basic as action be that difficult to defend? No. Instead I have to "just read Mises." And I'm sure that if I did and disagreed, Stephan would have me read yet another tract. And so on, and so on, like a flurry of claims and counter-claims in a lawsuit. His tactic is not to argue, but to fatigue you into submission.

Shayne