KInsella and Thin Air

[George H. Smith]

All you need do is apply my example to your ideal form of government. You are perfectly happy with the government you have, but trouble-makers are spreading egregious lies about it (e.g., that it has constructed secret concentration camps) that are causing enormous discontent and making it difficult for your ideal government to function. So do you think the principle of "seditious libel" (the exact words are immaterial) should be applied in this case?

Ghs

I have some questions with this. Accusing all preachers of fraud cannot be shown to be a lie.

This would be a matter of fact for a civil court to decide. I am concerned with the principle involved, namely: Should statements like this even be legally actionable in the first place? Should a government have the right to demand that I appear in court in order to defend myself against libel charges? The proper answer to all such questions is NO. Even if I was deliberately lying about preachers, I did not use force, or the threat of force, against them. I did not violate their rights. The proper function of government, by O'ist standards, is to protect individual rights, not to compel people to tell the truth about other people.

Saying you don't like a food might be harmful (if you're a celebrity) to a producer, but there's no lie involved - so too bad. Saying a food is harmful (if it isn't) is a lie, and if it causes harm I don't see a problem with a law against this.

I gave this example in response to Michael. He agrees with you that there should be libel laws, but he does not agree that such laws should apply to food and other products. I frankly think your position is more consistent than his.

Same with your government example, I don't see a problem with a law against this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't see the problem. Can you help me see it?

We are seeing the same thing, namely, that seditious libel laws are a logical extension of the general case for libel laws. But I see this conclusion as a reductio ad absurdum of the case for libel laws, because I never expected to find any libertarian or O'ist type -- or any thoughtful conservative, for that matter -- who actually endorses seditious libel laws. These expectations may not apply to you, however, since I don't know anything about your political principles.

Btw, in English common law, anti-blasphemy statutes also fell into the general category of libel law. This was a major reason why Thomas Jefferson did not want common law precedents to be applied by American courts, and why he targeted Sir William Blackstone, the widely admired authority on common law, as one of the greatest threats to American liberty. (David Hume was another writer whose influence Jefferson feared.)

The inclusion of blasphemy as a type of libel is not as far-fetched as it may first appear. (My "All preachers are frauds" remark is just one example.) This, however, is a subject for another discussion. My point here is that the history of libel law is about as anti-freedom as it is possible to get.

Ghs

[bmacwilliam]

sx

The crime of seditious libel is deeply rooted in English common law. Would you agree that someone who lies about his government and thereby causes it harm -- e.g., by diminishing the allegiance of its citizens -- should be liable to prosecution? If not, why not? (In later interpretations of seditious libel, even truth was not a defense. See Leonard W. Levy, Freedom of Speech and Press in America: Legacy of Suppression, Harper Torchbooks, 1963.)

Ghs

Any entity that taxes its subjects should be deconstructed. Lying is the non-violent form of insurrection and subversion. Besides the government, almost by its nature is a lie machine. So lying about the liars is fair dinkum.

All you need do is apply my example to your ideal form of government. You are perfectly happy with the government you have, but trouble-makers are spreading egregious lies about it (e.g., that it has constructed secret concentration camps) that are causing enormous discontent and making it difficult for your ideal government to function. So do you think the principle of "seditious libel" (the exact words are immaterial) should be applied in this case?

Ghs

I have some questions with this. Accusing all preachers of fraud cannot be shown to be a lie.

Saying you don't like a food might be harmful (if you're a celebrity) to a producer, but there's no lie involved - so too bad. Saying a food is harmful (if it isn't) is a lie, and if it causes harm I don't see a problem with a law against this.

Same with your government example, I don't see a problem with a law against this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't see the problem. Can you help me see it?

Bob

you don't have a problem with laws against sedition?? ..... The problem ... first, the state is criminal. It should make no laws--much less laws that ban criticism of it! The other, more general, problem, is the only laws that are legitimate are laws that prohibit aggression--that is, the use of others' property without their consent; that is, the invasion of others' property borders. The reason is any law is a use of force, and if it is not in response to an initiation of force, it, itself, is the initiation and is aggression and thus illegitimate (by libertarian lights). So, for you to "not hae a problem with" a given law, as a libertarian, you need to show that the law is in RESPONSE to some action that is itself aggression (initiated force). A law against criticism of/lying about the state is not directed at aggression, since lying is NOT AGGRESSION.

"The problem ... first, the state is criminal."

Well, not sure I see this in every case or where this comes from.

What I don't see is that if you are spewing hatred-filled lies about someone, and they suffer real harm, how is that not aggression? I'd rather have a punch in the face.

The literal and simplistic notion of "initiation of force" is too simplistic. Humans live in physical AND intellectual worlds and intellectual force and aggression can be equally or more harmful sometimes than physical force.

"since lying is NOT AGGRESSION"

sometimes it is not, but sometimes it most certainly is.

Bob

Edited December 3, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[sjw]

The literal and simplistic notion of "initiation of force" is too simplistic. Humans live in physical AND intellectual worlds and intellectual force and aggression can be equally or more harmful sometimes than physical force.

But intellectual "force" should only be considered aggression when it causes physical interference. That's the point at issue here -- identifying precisely when that happens. No one has made a good argument that it can happen with libel/slander yet. Both sides agree that it can happen (contracting a hit man can be considered "intellectual force", i.e., communication that constitutes interference).

Shayne

[sjw]

All you need do is apply my example to your ideal form of government. You are perfectly happy with the government you have, but trouble-makers are spreading egregious lies about it (e.g., that it has constructed secret concentration camps) that are causing enormous discontent and making it difficult for your ideal government to function. So do you think the principle of "seditious libel" (the exact words are immaterial) should be applied in this case?

Ghs

No bubbah. I am not perfectly happy with the government I have. I have no ideal form of government besides reason and self-control. All governments are bad. but some are very much worse than others. There has never, in human history, been a good government. The origin of government, as Tom Paine pointed out, is the evil that men do to each other. Society is a blessing. Government, is at best, a necessary evil.

Ba'al Chatzaf

For some reason I thought that you are a minarchist. My mistake. Perhaps some minarchist who also believes in libel laws would like to address my hypothetical.

Ghs

I don't call myself a minarchist because all the minarchists I know of have advocated totalitarian jurisdictions, so I lump them with statists in principle. Anyways, your hypothetical can be addressed whether the libel applies to a single person, a group, or a government -- none of these entities are in principle different with respect to the principle here. In the case at hand, our particular government is in many ways a criminal organization that is incrementally heading toward prison camps, and has even had them in the not-to-distant past (Japanese internment), so we'd have to change your hypothetical to a fictional realm where government was actually constructed the way I think it should be: one based on actual consent. And in that scenario I think the accusation would be considered so absurd that no sane person could take it seriously, and thus would not constitute harm. If there's no harm there's no case.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

The literal and simplistic notion of "initiation of force" is too simplistic. Humans live in physical AND intellectual worlds and intellectual force and aggression can be equally or more harmful sometimes than physical force.

But intellectual "force" should only be considered aggression when it causes physical interference. That's the point at issue here -- identifying precisely when that happens. No one has made a good argument that it can happen with libel/slander yet. Both sides agree that it can happen (contracting a hit man can be considered "intellectual force", i.e., communication that constitutes interference).

Shayne

Contracting with a hit man to kill someone is not "intellectual force." Nor is this some kind of "communication that constitutes interference."

One does far more than communicate with a hit man in this case. One takes the action of entering into a contractual arrangement with him to violate the rights of a third party. If I merely say to Jack that I don't like Jill and I wish someone would kill her, this communication of my thoughts would not make me legally liable if Jack, inspired by my communication, decided to murder Jill. Only if I took the action of entering into a contractual arrangement with Jack would I be legally liable. This is so because Jack would be acting as my agent.

Ghs

[sjw]

One does far more than communicate with a hit man in this case. One takes the action of entering into a contractual arrangement with him to violate the rights of a third party.

Which is communication. It is "intellectual force" in the sense I intended that phrase to mean.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

One does far more than communicate with a hit man in this case. One takes the action of entering into a contractual arrangement with him to violate the rights of a third party.

Which is communication. It is "intellectual force" in the sense I intended that phrase to mean.

Shayne

Whatever you say, Humpty Dumpty.

Ghs

[nskinsella]

sx

The crime of seditious libel is deeply rooted in English common law. Would you agree that someone who lies about his government and thereby causes it harm -- e.g., by diminishing the allegiance of its citizens -- should be liable to prosecution? If not, why not? (In later interpretations of seditious libel, even truth was not a defense. See Leonard W. Levy, Freedom of Speech and Press in America: Legacy of Suppression, Harper Torchbooks, 1963.)

Ghs

Any entity that taxes its subjects should be deconstructed. Lying is the non-violent form of insurrection and subversion. Besides the government, almost by its nature is a lie machine. So lying about the liars is fair dinkum.

All you need do is apply my example to your ideal form of government. You are perfectly happy with the government you have, but trouble-makers are spreading egregious lies about it (e.g., that it has constructed secret concentration camps) that are causing enormous discontent and making it difficult for your ideal government to function. So do you think the principle of "seditious libel" (the exact words are immaterial) should be applied in this case?

Ghs

I have some questions with this. Accusing all preachers of fraud cannot be shown to be a lie.

Saying you don't like a food might be harmful (if you're a celebrity) to a producer, but there's no lie involved - so too bad. Saying a food is harmful (if it isn't) is a lie, and if it causes harm I don't see a problem with a law against this.

Same with your government example, I don't see a problem with a law against this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't see the problem. Can you help me see it?

Bob

you don't have a problem with laws against sedition?? ..... The problem ... first, the state is criminal. It should make no laws--much less laws that ban criticism of it! The other, more general, problem, is the only laws that are legitimate are laws that prohibit aggression--that is, the use of others' property without their consent; that is, the invasion of others' property borders. The reason is any law is a use of force, and if it is not in response to an initiation of force, it, itself, is the initiation and is aggression and thus illegitimate (by libertarian lights). So, for you to "not hae a problem with" a given law, as a libertarian, you need to show that the law is in RESPONSE to some action that is itself aggression (initiated force). A law against criticism of/lying about the state is not directed at aggression, since lying is NOT AGGRESSION.

"The problem ... first, the state is criminal."

Well, not sure I see this in every case or where this comes from.

... are you totally unaware of the libertarian anarchist position? The state commits aggression necessarily by its nature. Aggression is ... what libertarians view as criminal.

What I don't see is that if you are spewing hatred-filled lies about someone, and they suffer real harm, how is that not aggression? I'd rather have a punch in the face.

how is causing people to suffer harm aggression? There are many ways you can harm someone without it being illegal or criminal or aggression. Aggression means initiating force, invading the borders of their property.

The literal and simplistic notion of "initiation of force" is too simplistic. Humans live in physical AND intellectual worlds and intellectual force and aggression can be equally or more harmful sometimes than physical force.

... intellectual force? Okay, if it's real ,then just use intellectual force to "enforce" your laws--don't use physical force, if it's so unimportant.

"since lying is NOT AGGRESSION"

sometimes it is not, but sometimes it most certainly is.

Bob

apparently you are using a vague definition of aggression, one that means "causing harm" or something loosey-goosey lke that. that leads to error.

[nskinsella]

The literal and simplistic notion of "initiation of force" is too simplistic. Humans live in physical AND intellectual worlds and intellectual force and aggression can be equally or more harmful sometimes than physical force.

But intellectual "force" should only be considered aggression when it causes physical interference. That's the point at issue here -- identifying precisely when that happens. No one has made a good argument that it can happen with libel/slander yet. Both sides agree that it can happen (contracting a hit man can be considered "intellectual force", i.e., communication that constitutes interference).

Shayne

this is so confused. it's not intellectual force. And it's got nothing to do with libel. What 'lie" is invovled in hiring a hit man??

[sjw]

One does far more than communicate with a hit man in this case. One takes the action of entering into a contractual arrangement with him to violate the rights of a third party.

Which is communication. It is "intellectual force" in the sense I intended that phrase to mean.

Shayne

Whatever you say, Humpty Dumpty.

Ghs

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

[bmacwilliam]

The literal and simplistic notion of "initiation of force" is too simplistic. Humans live in physical AND intellectual worlds and intellectual force and aggression can be equally or more harmful sometimes than physical force.

But intellectual "force" should only be considered aggression when it causes physical interference.Shayne

Why?

[sjw]

The literal and simplistic notion of "initiation of force" is too simplistic. Humans live in physical AND intellectual worlds and intellectual force and aggression can be equally or more harmful sometimes than physical force.

But intellectual "force" should only be considered aggression when it causes physical interference. That's the point at issue here -- identifying precisely when that happens. No one has made a good argument that it can happen with libel/slander yet. Both sides agree that it can happen (contracting a hit man can be considered "intellectual force", i.e., communication that constitutes interference).

Shayne

this is so confused. it's not intellectual force. And it's got nothing to do with libel. What 'lie" is invovled in hiring a hit man??

Your habit of externalizing your own inner confusion continues to fascinate.

No, I wasn't talking about libel, I was talking more generally about communication -- thoughts flowing from one mind to another. In some instances you and George agree that it can constitute aggression (taking out a contract) in others you don't agree (libel).

Shayne

[sjw]

The literal and simplistic notion of "initiation of force" is too simplistic. Humans live in physical AND intellectual worlds and intellectual force and aggression can be equally or more harmful sometimes than physical force.

But intellectual "force" should only be considered aggression when it causes physical interference.Shayne

Why?

If it's not physical, it's not interference. You exist as a physical thing. Nothing effects you unless it ultimately results in some kind of physical change. The problem then is showing how the cause is connected to the effect (or to the expected effect, when trying to prevent results that would flow "intellectual force").

Shayne

[nskinsella]

One does far more than communicate with a hit man in this case. One takes the action of entering into a contractual arrangement with him to violate the rights of a third party.

Which is communication. It is "intellectual force" in the sense I intended that phrase to mean.

Shayne

I think the key thing is whether one's action (even if it's a communication) plays a causal role in the commission of aggression. I don't think you have ot have "a contract"--a contract is just an exchange of title. If a woman persuades some man to kill her husband merely as a favor, in my view she is still guilty of murdere even if there was no contract. The hit-man is guilty too. They are both guilty; they are co-conspirators. But this has nothing to do wtih libel law. Libel law has to do wiht telling a falshood and "damage" to someone's reputation. Hre, there is no falsehood; and damage is a bullet entering the husband's body (aggression)

[bmacwilliam]

sx

The crime of seditious libel is deeply rooted in English common law. Would you agree that someone who lies about his government and thereby causes it harm -- e.g., by diminishing the allegiance of its citizens -- should be liable to prosecution? If not, why not? (In later interpretations of seditious libel, even truth was not a defense. See Leonard W. Levy, Freedom of Speech and Press in America: Legacy of Suppression, Harper Torchbooks, 1963.)

Ghs

Any entity that taxes its subjects should be deconstructed. Lying is the non-violent form of insurrection and subversion. Besides the government, almost by its nature is a lie machine. So lying about the liars is fair dinkum.

All you need do is apply my example to your ideal form of government. You are perfectly happy with the government you have, but trouble-makers are spreading egregious lies about it (e.g., that it has constructed secret concentration camps) that are causing enormous discontent and making it difficult for your ideal government to function. So do you think the principle of "seditious libel" (the exact words are immaterial) should be applied in this case?

Ghs

I have some questions with this. Accusing all preachers of fraud cannot be shown to be a lie.

Saying you don't like a food might be harmful (if you're a celebrity) to a producer, but there's no lie involved - so too bad. Saying a food is harmful (if it isn't) is a lie, and if it causes harm I don't see a problem with a law against this.

Same with your government example, I don't see a problem with a law against this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't see the problem. Can you help me see it?

Bob

you don't have a problem with laws against sedition?? ..... The problem ... first, the state is criminal. It should make no laws--much less laws that ban criticism of it! The other, more general, problem, is the only laws that are legitimate are laws that prohibit aggression--that is, the use of others' property without their consent; that is, the invasion of others' property borders. The reason is any law is a use of force, and if it is not in response to an initiation of force, it, itself, is the initiation and is aggression and thus illegitimate (by libertarian lights). So, for you to "not hae a problem with" a given law, as a libertarian, you need to show that the law is in RESPONSE to some action that is itself aggression (initiated force). A law against criticism of/lying about the state is not directed at aggression, since lying is NOT AGGRESSION.

"The problem ... first, the state is criminal."

Well, not sure I see this in every case or where this comes from.

... are you totally unaware of the libertarian anarchist position? The state commits aggression necessarily by its nature. Aggression is ... what libertarians view as criminal.

What I don't see is that if you are spewing hatred-filled lies about someone, and they suffer real harm, how is that not aggression? I'd rather have a punch in the face.

how is causing people to suffer harm aggression? There are many ways you can harm someone without it being illegal or criminal or aggression. Aggression means initiating force, invading the borders of their property.

The literal and simplistic notion of "initiation of force" is too simplistic. Humans live in physical AND intellectual worlds and intellectual force and aggression can be equally or more harmful sometimes than physical force.

... intellectual force? Okay, if it's real ,then just use intellectual force to "enforce" your laws--don't use physical force, if it's so unimportant.

"since lying is NOT AGGRESSION"

sometimes it is not, but sometimes it most certainly is.

Bob

apparently you are using a vague definition of aggression, one that means "causing harm" or something loosey-goosey lke that. that leads to error.

"how is causing people to suffer harm aggression? There are many ways you can harm someone without it being illegal or criminal or aggression."

Agreed.

"Aggression means initiating force, invading the borders of their property."

Ok, your definition, I'll accept.

But then, you're saying that Aggression - your Aggression - is the only thing that should be illegal?

Is this true?

Bob

[George H. Smith]

The literal and simplistic notion of "initiation of force" is too simplistic. Humans live in physical AND intellectual worlds and intellectual force and aggression can be equally or more harmful sometimes than physical force.

But intellectual "force" should only be considered aggression when it causes physical interference. That's the point at issue here -- identifying precisely when that happens. No one has made a good argument that it can happen with libel/slander yet. Both sides agree that it can happen (contracting a hit man can be considered "intellectual force", i.e., communication that constitutes interference).

Shayne

this is so confused. it's not intellectual force. And it's got nothing to do with libel. What 'lie" is invovled in hiring a hit man??

Your habit of externalizing your own inner confusion continues to fascinate.

No, I wasn't talking about libel, I was talking more generally about communication -- thoughts flowing from one mind to another. In some instances you and George agree that it can constitute aggression (taking out a contract) in others you don't agree (libel).

Shayne

I don't agree with this at all; this was the point of my earlier post about Jack and Jill. You appear to be laying the groundwork for your argument that libel qualifies as a type of aggression. But your foundation stinks like a four-day-old fish, and I'm not buying it.

Ghs

[sjw]

I think the key thing is whether one's action (even if it's a communication) plays a causal role in the commission of aggression. I don't think you have ot have "a contract"--a contract is just an exchange of title. If a woman persuades some man to kill her husband merely as a favor, in my view she is still guilty of murdere even if there was no contract. The hit-man is guilty too. They are both guilty; they are co-conspirators.

Yes. We're in basic agreement with the standards here. That's what separates us from Objectivists -- we have an actual concern for cause and effect.

But this has nothing to do wtih libel law. Libel law has to do wiht telling a falshood and "damage" to someone's reputation. Hre, there is no falsehood; and damage is a bullet entering the husband's body (aggression)

The actual target of libel isn't reputation, it is what the reputation can claim, importantly: property, services, relationships. If a lie can cause destruction of these values, then there is a case for libel to be a crime. And yes, no one has made a case yet.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

"intellectual force? Okay, if it's real ,then just use intellectual force to "enforce" your laws--don't use physical force, if it's so unimportant."

Ok, fair enough, but I can steal all your money without ever touching you or your money. No physical force at all.

Bob

[sjw]

No, I wasn't talking about libel, I was talking more generally about communication -- thoughts flowing from one mind to another. In some instances you and George agree that it can constitute aggression (taking out a contract) in others you don't agree (libel).

Shayne

I don't agree with this at all; this was the point of my earlier post about Jack and Jill. You appear to be laying the groundwork for your argument that libel qualifies as a type of aggression. But your foundation stinks like a four-day-old fish, and I'm not buying it.

Ghs

I don't regard anything I said as controversial. Regarding the below, what particularly does the "action of entering a contractual arrangement" consist of but communication of thoughts from one person to another?

Shayne

One does far more than communicate with a hit man in this case. One takes the action of entering into a contractual arrangement with him to violate the rights of a third party. If I merely say to Jack that I don't like Jill and I wish someone would kill her, this communication of my thoughts would not make me legally liable if Jack, inspired by my communication, decided to murder Jill. Only if I took the action of entering into a contractual arrangement with Jack would I be legally liable. This is so because Jack would be acting as my agent.

[nskinsella]

sx

The crime of seditious libel is deeply rooted in English common law. Would you agree that someone who lies about his government and thereby causes it harm -- e.g., by diminishing the allegiance of its citizens -- should be liable to prosecution? If not, why not? (In later interpretations of seditious libel, even truth was not a defense. See Leonard W. Levy, Freedom of Speech and Press in America: Legacy of Suppression, Harper Torchbooks, 1963.)

Ghs

Any entity that taxes its subjects should be deconstructed. Lying is the non-violent form of insurrection and subversion. Besides the government, almost by its nature is a lie machine. So lying about the liars is fair dinkum.

All you need do is apply my example to your ideal form of government. You are perfectly happy with the government you have, but trouble-makers are spreading egregious lies about it (e.g., that it has constructed secret concentration camps) that are causing enormous discontent and making it difficult for your ideal government to function. So do you think the principle of "seditious libel" (the exact words are immaterial) should be applied in this case?

Ghs

I have some questions with this. Accusing all preachers of fraud cannot be shown to be a lie.

Saying you don't like a food might be harmful (if you're a celebrity) to a producer, but there's no lie involved - so too bad. Saying a food is harmful (if it isn't) is a lie, and if it causes harm I don't see a problem with a law against this.

Same with your government example, I don't see a problem with a law against this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't see the problem. Can you help me see it?

Bob

you don't have a problem with laws against sedition?? ..... The problem ... first, the state is criminal. It should make no laws--much less laws that ban criticism of it! The other, more general, problem, is the only laws that are legitimate are laws that prohibit aggression--that is, the use of others' property without their consent; that is, the invasion of others' property borders. The reason is any law is a use of force, and if it is not in response to an initiation of force, it, itself, is the initiation and is aggression and thus illegitimate (by libertarian lights). So, for you to "not hae a problem with" a given law, as a libertarian, you need to show that the law is in RESPONSE to some action that is itself aggression (initiated force). A law against criticism of/lying about the state is not directed at aggression, since lying is NOT AGGRESSION.

"The problem ... first, the state is criminal."

Well, not sure I see this in every case or where this comes from.

... are you totally unaware of the libertarian anarchist position? The state commits aggression necessarily by its nature. Aggression is ... what libertarians view as criminal.

What I don't see is that if you are spewing hatred-filled lies about someone, and they suffer real harm, how is that not aggression? I'd rather have a punch in the face.

how is causing people to suffer harm aggression? There are many ways you can harm someone without it being illegal or criminal or aggression. Aggression means initiating force, invading the borders of their property.

The literal and simplistic notion of "initiation of force" is too simplistic. Humans live in physical AND intellectual worlds and intellectual force and aggression can be equally or more harmful sometimes than physical force.

... intellectual force? Okay, if it's real ,then just use intellectual force to "enforce" your laws--don't use physical force, if it's so unimportant.

"since lying is NOT AGGRESSION"

sometimes it is not, but sometimes it most certainly is.

Bob

apparently you are using a vague definition of aggression, one that means "causing harm" or something loosey-goosey lke that. that leads to error.

"how is causing people to suffer harm aggression? There are many ways you can harm someone without it being illegal or criminal or aggression."

Agreed.

"Aggression means initiating force, invading the borders of their property."

Ok, your definition, I'll accept.

But then, you're saying that Aggression - your Aggression - is the only thing that should be illegal?

Is this true?

Bob

YES, of course. This is what libertarianism (and the political side of Objectivism) is all about. helloooo

[nskinsella]

I think the key thing is whether one's action (even if it's a communication) plays a causal role in the commission of aggression. I don't think you have ot have "a contract"--a contract is just an exchange of title. If a woman persuades some man to kill her husband merely as a favor, in my view she is still guilty of murdere even if there was no contract. The hit-man is guilty too. They are both guilty; they are co-conspirators.

Yes. We're in basic agreement with the standards here. That's what separates us from Objectivists -- we have an actual concern for cause and effect.

I am not aware that Objectivists are against liability for, say, inciting a riot.

But this has nothing to do wtih libel law. Libel law has to do wiht telling a falshood and "damage" to someone's reputation. Hre, there is no falsehood; and damage is a bullet entering the husband's body (aggression)

The actual target of libel isn't reputation, it is what the reputation can claim, importantly: property, services, relationships. If a lie can cause destruction of these values, then there is a case for libel to be a crime. And yes, no one has made a case yet.

Shayne

"destruction" of "values": but libertarainism doesn't prohbit "destruction" it prohibits aggression. And there is no property right in values. You are equivocating.

[sjw]

But then, you're saying that Aggression - your Aggression - is the only thing that should be illegal?

Is this true?

Bob

YES, of course. This is what libertarianism (and the political side of Objectivism) is all about. helloooo

I think it's better to frame it this way: the only crimes are individual rights violations. And a right can only be violated by physical interference. But it's not quite that simple, because the initial interference can be separated by a causal chain such that it is difficult to discern the connection of cause and effect.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

The actual target of libel isn't reputation, it is what the reputation can claim, importantly: property, services, relationships. If a lie can cause destruction of these values, then there is a case for libel to be a crime. And yes, no one has made a case yet.

Shayne

The person's property in this case is damaged by deception, not by force or aggression (as defined). I honestly don't understand the argument agaist libel as a crime. I'd like to try to understand the other position.

[George H. Smith]

No, I wasn't talking about libel, I was talking more generally about communication -- thoughts flowing from one mind to another. In some instances you and George agree that it can constitute aggression (taking out a contract) in others you don't agree (libel).

Shayne

I don't agree with this at all; this was the point of my earlier post about Jack and Jill. You appear to be laying the groundwork for your argument that libel qualifies as a type of aggression. But your foundation stinks like a four-day-old fish, and I'm not buying it.

Ghs

I don't regard anything I said as controversial. Regarding the below, what particularly does the "action of entering a contractual arrangement" consist of but communication of thoughts from one person to another?

What you said is flat wrong; I don't care whether you think it is controversial or not.

Do I really need to give you a crash course on the libertarian theory of contracts, and how contracts involve far more than "communication"? I'm not willing to take the time to do this. Read some Murray Rothbard (especially his Ethics of Liberty) or Randy Barnett (especially The Structure of Liberty). There are also some articles on this topic in the Journal of Libertarian Studies.

Meanwhile, don't insult my intelligence by telling me that contracts are simply a form of communication and then christen this absurd remark as noncontroversial. You are building a boat that won't float.

Ghs

[bmacwilliam]

YES, of course. This is what libertarianism (and the political side of Objectivism) is all about. helloooo

I'm well aware that Objectivism holds the "non-initiation of force" idea, I was not aware that this was "libertarianism" too.

So I learned something, but still have to say that this makes no sense whatsoever. Don't you have to make all kinds of distortions to try to jam the "aggression" or "force" square peg in "deception's" round hole?

Bob