KInsella and Thin Air

[George H. Smith]

Yeah, I got that point. What I missed was the argument that communication can constitute "intellectual force." True, communication can be one element is a series of actions that eventuate in aggression, but this doesn't mean that communication per se can be a type of aggression. Only if the final act is itself an aggressive act can the communication be regarded as part of a causal chain.

I recall that you made a similar point in a reply to (I think) Bob Mac. Fine, but that won't get your key argument anywhere. But if you would like to attempt the logical leap, be my guest.

Ghs

I'm unclear on what you're objecting to. The first action in the chain in the hitman case is communication. So that's an example of the first causal act, that also happens to be communication. The act of communicating in this case is like pulling a trigger on a gun. Should pulling a trigger be illegal? Of course not. Only when you've aimed at harming someone.

You're making a big deal about something that seems trivial and uncontroversial, I have no idea what you think the problem is.

Shayne

No, communicating to a hit man is not "like" pulling the trigger on a gun. The expression of a desire to commit an aggressive act is not the same thing as actually committing that act.

I'm tired of your avoiding argumentation by claiming that your points are "trivial and uncontroversial." Thus, since your ultimate goal is to show how libel qualifies as a type of aggression (no "trigger" here), I will wait until I see your argument before commenting further. All this stuff about the nature of contracts and the role of communication in an aggressive act is irrelevant to the problem of libel.

Ghs

[sjw]

No, communicating to a hit man is not "like" pulling the trigger on a gun. The expression of a desire to commit an aggressive act is not the same thing as actually committing that act.

That's either a dishonest or incompetent interpretation. The communication is the form of action in which the contract is created. It is the cause of the contract -- the trigger for the contract, which is the trigger for the hit.

I'm tired of your avoiding argumentation by claiming that your points are "trivial and uncontroversial." Thus, since your ultimate goal is to show how libel qualifies as a type of aggression (no "trigger" here), I will wait until I see your argument before commenting further. All this stuff about the nature of contracts and the role of communication in an aggressive act is irrelevant to the problem of libel.

Ghs

I'm tired of you insisting on being thick-headed about trivialities in order to prevent a new idea from entering it. Not that I think anything I said was new, but you're so paranoid about what you think might be coming that you won't even permit it to get off the ground (not that I was necessarily going to share my thoughts on the topic).

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

If several people get together to plan a bank robbery and they are then arrested prior to an actual robbery for conspiracy to rob the bank, did they initiate force and violate rights?

If one country, say a mostly free country, has good reason to know it is about to be attacked by a dictatorship, is attacking that dictatorship first to prevent that a legitimate use of state power (assuming state legitimacy)?

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

Yeah, I got that point. What I missed was the argument that communication can constitute "intellectual force." True, communication can be one element is a series of actions that eventuate in aggression, but this doesn't mean that communication per se can be a type of aggression. Only if the final act is itself an aggressive act can the communication be regarded as part of a causal chain.

I recall that you made a similar point in a reply to (I think) Bob Mac. Fine, but that won't get your key argument anywhere. But if you would like to attempt the logical leap, be my guest.

Ghs

I'm unclear on what you're objecting to. The first action in the chain in the hitman case is communication. So that's an example of the first causal act, that also happens to be communication. The act of communicating in this case is like pulling a trigger on a gun. Should pulling a trigger be illegal? Of course not. Only when you've aimed at harming someone.

You're making a big deal about something that seems trivial and uncontroversial, I have no idea what you think the problem is.

Shayne

No, communicating to a hit man is not "like" pulling the trigger on a gun. The expression of a desire to commit an aggressive act is not the same thing as actually committing that act.

I'm tired of your avoiding argumentation by claiming that your points are "trivial and uncontroversial." Thus, since your ultimate goal is to show how libel qualifies as a type of aggression (no "trigger" here), I will wait until I see your argument before commenting further. All this stuff about the nature of contracts and the role of communication in an aggressive act is irrelevant to the problem of libel.

Ghs

George Smith takes a new million-dollar-a-year job, oh... let's say at the #1 Drug and Alcohol Rehab centre in the world, and voluntarily enters into an employment contract that has somewhat strict conduct requirements. One of these requirements is that George does not drink alcohol. George is a tea-totaller anyway so he's cool with that.

SJW, George's mortal enemy photoshops a picture that shows George chugging tequila shooters at the strip-joint. He sends this to George's employer and George get's canned.

SJW has broken no "worthy" laws?

Bob

[sjw]

If several people get together to plan a bank robbery and they are then arrested prior to an actual robbery for conspiracy to rob the bank, did they initiate force and violate rights?

If somebody shoots at you and misses, did they violate your rights?

If one country, say a mostly free country, has good reason to know it is about to be attacked by a dictatorship, is attacking that dictatorship first to prevent that a legitimate use of state power (assuming state legitimacy)?

--Brant

If somebody is in the process of pulling a trigger, do you have a right to shoot him before he shoots you?

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I'm tired of you insisting on being thick-headed about trivialities in order to prevent a new idea from entering it. Not that I think anything I said was new, but you're so paranoid about what you think might be coming that you won't even permit it to get off the ground (not that I was necessarily going to share my thoughts on the topic).

Defending the notion of "intellectual force" is scarcely a triviality. It would undercut the very foundation of the libertarian (including O'ist) idea of coercion -- so, no, I am not willing to let you "get off the ground" with this sloppy, undefined idea. No self-respecting Randian would.

Okay, so far you have established that in some cases communication can be one element in a causal chain that eventuates in an aggressive action. Of course, the same can be said of walking or driving to a destination, opening doors, choosing to wear a certain type of clothing, and a host of other actions.

We thus arrive at the big question: So what?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George Smith takes a new million-dollar-a-year job, oh... let's say at the #1 Drug and Alcohol Rehab centre in the world, and voluntarily enters into an employment contract that has somewhat strict conduct requirements. One of these requirements is that George does not drink alcohol. George is a tea-totaller anyway so he's cool with that.

SJW, George's mortal enemy photoshops a picture that shows George chugging tequila shooters at the strip-joint. He sends this to George's employer and George get's canned.

SJW has broken no "worthy" laws?

Bob

By George, I think he's got it!

[Later edit: If my employer fires me without making a reasonable effort to authenticate the doctored photo, then I might have a cause of action against him for breach of contract.]

Ghs

[bmacwilliam]

George Smith takes a new million-dollar-a-year job, oh... let's say at the #1 Drug and Alcohol Rehab centre in the world, and voluntarily enters into an employment contract that has somewhat strict conduct requirements. One of these requirements is that George does not drink alcohol. George is a tea-totaller anyway so he's cool with that.

SJW, George's mortal enemy photoshops a picture that shows George chugging tequila shooters at the strip-joint. He sends this to George's employer and George get's canned.

SJW has broken no "worthy" laws?

Bob

By George, I think he's got it!

[Later edit: If my employer fires me without making a reasonable effort to authenticate the doctored photo, then I might have a cause of action against him for breach of contract.]

Ghs

Yep, I was pretty sure I got it, but I certainly don't get it.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Anyway, that's why I went back over this thread trying to find the post about killing slave holders.

. . .

EDIT: I just saw that I will have to find the post I want on another thread, it is not in this one...)

Just for the record and for people following this thread who are interested in the discussion I was involved in, I did find the post and I made a pretty long one in response. It is here.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

If several people get together to plan a bank robbery and they are then arrested prior to an actual robbery for conspiracy to rob the bank, did they initiate force and violate rights?

This is a complicated issue. In most cases talk alone is not sufficient to justify the retaliatory use of force; there must be some action that manifests intent to carry out a plan. I can think of some exceptions, however.

As concrete cases become more complex by incorporating more variables, the less likely it is that a general theory can offer definitive solutions. This is why we need adjudication agencies, or courts of law. General laws function like the major premise of a deductive syllogism, whereas courts of law determine the minor premise.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George Smith takes a new million-dollar-a-year job, oh... let's say at the #1 Drug and Alcohol Rehab centre in the world, and voluntarily enters into an employment contract that has somewhat strict conduct requirements. One of these requirements is that George does not drink alcohol. George is a tea-totaller anyway so he's cool with that.

SJW, George's mortal enemy photoshops a picture that shows George chugging tequila shooters at the strip-joint. He sends this to George's employer and George get's canned.

SJW has broken no "worthy" laws?

Bob

By George, I think he's got it!

[Later edit: If my employer fires me without making a reasonable effort to authenticate the doctored photo, then I might have a cause of action against him for breach of contract.]

Ghs

Yep, I was pretty sure I got it, but I certainly don't get it.

Bob

There isn't much to get. Shit happens in a free society. Freedom is not always fair.

Ghs

[bmacwilliam]

If several people get together to plan a bank robbery and they are then arrested prior to an actual robbery for conspiracy to rob the bank, did they initiate force and violate rights?

This is a complicated issue. In most cases talk alone is not sufficient to justify the retaliatory use of force; there must be some action that manifests intent to carry out a plan. I can think of some exceptions, however.

Ghs

Hmm...Interested in the exceptions. What type of talk crosses the line?

Bob

[George H. Smith]

If several people get together to plan a bank robbery and they are then arrested prior to an actual robbery for conspiracy to rob the bank, did they initiate force and violate rights?

This is a complicated issue. In most cases talk alone is not sufficient to justify the retaliatory use of force; there must be some action that manifests intent to carry out a plan. I can think of some exceptions, however.

Ghs

Hmm...Interested in the exceptions. What type of talk crosses the line?

Bob

I was thinking of cases like this: A drunk stranger approaches you on the street and yells, "I'm going to punch you in the face!" Here there may not be time to await an overt action, so you may legitimately assume that the threat is real one, especially if he is "in your face."

Of course, there is another way to interpret this incident, viz: The fact of getting "in your face" might be construed as the action manifesting intent.

All such examples will ultimately depend on a "reasonable man" interpretation of the context. For example, if a drunk stranger shouts the threat from the opposite side of the street, while making no attempt to cross, then you probably would not be justified in crossing the street to hit him first.

Ghs

[bmacwilliam]

George Smith takes a new million-dollar-a-year job, oh... let's say at the #1 Drug and Alcohol Rehab centre in the world, and voluntarily enters into an employment contract that has somewhat strict conduct requirements. One of these requirements is that George does not drink alcohol. George is a tea-totaller anyway so he's cool with that.

SJW, George's mortal enemy photoshops a picture that shows George chugging tequila shooters at the strip-joint. He sends this to George's employer and George get's canned.

SJW has broken no "worthy" laws?

Bob

By George, I think he's got it!

[Later edit: If my employer fires me without making a reasonable effort to authenticate the doctored photo, then I might have a cause of action against him for breach of contract.]

Ghs

Yep, I was pretty sure I got it, but I certainly don't get it.

Bob

There isn't much to get. Shit happens in a free society. Freedom is not always fair.

Ghs

That's it?

I understand that a person has property rights and that means a violation has happened if the property is taken by force. I think the difference between force and deception wrt property rights is arbitrary and unjustified.

[bmacwilliam]

If several people get together to plan a bank robbery and they are then arrested prior to an actual robbery for conspiracy to rob the bank, did they initiate force and violate rights?

This is a complicated issue. In most cases talk alone is not sufficient to justify the retaliatory use of force; there must be some action that manifests intent to carry out a plan. I can think of some exceptions, however.

Ghs

Hmm...Interested in the exceptions. What type of talk crosses the line?

Bob

I was thinking of cases like this: A drunk stranger approaches you on the street and yells, "I'm going to punch you in the face!" Here there may not be time to await an overt action, so you may legitimately assume that the threat is real one, especially if he is "in your face."

Of course, there is another way to interpret this incident, viz: The fact of getting "in your face" might be construed as the action manifesting intent.

All such examples will ultimately depend on a "reasonable man" interpretation of the context. For example, if a drunk stranger shouts the threat from the opposite side of the street, while making no attempt to cross, then you probably would not be justified in crossing the street to hit him first.

Ghs

Yeah I get it. Somehow physical injury or contract breaches (involving title transfer only) have an exalted place in this line of reasoning. Damages by deception (sans title transfer) don't count. I get it, it's just really dumb.

Bob

[Xray]

Contracts are a type of communication. If Rothbard contradicts that then that's a good reason not to read Rothbard.

Shayne

Contracts are not "a type of communication". They are the result of a process involving communication.

Just like a cake is not "a type of baking", but the result of a process involving baking.

Rothbard: "In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property. "

"Should only be enforceable" is a priceless combination of contradictory terms. Since nothing can be enforced with a mere "should", Rothbard, by phrasing it like that, 'cuts off the bough he is sitting on', as we say in German). ;)

In addition, Rothbard's worship of property rests on a subjective value judgement only: the moral sanction of property as such.

George Smith takes a new million-dollar-a-year job, oh... let's say at the #1 Drug and Alcohol Rehab centre in the world, and voluntarily enters into an employment contract that has somewhat strict conduct requirements. One of these requirements is that George does not drink alcohol. George is a tea-totaller anyway so he's cool with that.

SJW, George's mortal enemy photoshops a picture that shows George chugging tequila shooters at the strip-joint. He sends this to George's employer and George get's canned.

SJW has broken no "worthy" laws?

Bob

[Later edit: If my employer fires me without making a reasonable effort to authenticate the doctored photo, then I might have a cause of action against him for breach of contract.]

And SJW would be in legal trouble as well if you sued him for what he did with the doctored photo.

[to clarify: my use of "did" is fictional in the context of this discussion, which is about hypothetical scenarios only].

Edited December 3, 2010 by Xray

[merjet]

Rothbard: "In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property. "

"Should only be enforceable" is a priceless combination of contradictory terms. Since nothing can be enforced with a mere "should", Rothbard, by phrasing it like that, 'cuts off the bough he is sitting on', as we say in German). ;)

You need a course in reading comprehension.

[George H. Smith]

Yeah I get it. Somehow physical injury or contract breaches (involving title transfer only) have an exalted place in this line of reasoning. Damages by deception (sans title transfer) don't count. I get it, it's just really dumb.

Bob

Rights have an "exalted place" in this, the libertarian (and O'ist), line of thinking. If you begin authorizing the governmental use of force is matters pertaining to noncoercive "damages" and "harm," then you will find yourself without ammunition in the battle against statism.

Ghs

[Xray]

Rothbard: "In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property. "

"Should only be enforceable" is a priceless combination of contradictory terms. Since nothing can be enforced with a mere "should", Rothbard, by phrasing it like that, 'cuts off the bough he is sitting on', as we say in German). ;)

You need a course in reading comprehension.

It looks like you missed what I'm getting at. This was meant to be understood as the mere ouverture in a discussion with 'anti-statists' in whose minds private "property" resides as the ultimate, sacred value.

And since in their minds, the violation of that sacred value seems to warrant the use of force, it is about getting them to show their colors by asking them how they are going to go about it.

"So to anyone who says that a certain type of contract "should" be "enforceable", I'd continue:

"Should" is a bit wishy-washy; it's like telling people they 'should' not steal or they 'should' pay their taxes.

Therefore I'd suggest we leave the vague "should" floating up there; instead you can demonstrate with concrete examples what exactly you have in mind.

Suppose John has bought a house from you but hasn't paid it off yet. He has still quite a few rates to pay, but suddenly the payments stop. You want to throw John out of the house (which as long as the last rate has been paid, is still your property), but John has no intention of moving out. What do you do? Get him to move out at gunpoint? In short, I want a concrete demonstration of how things are going to work in that libertarian paradise of yours where everything governmental is obviously considered as 'evil'.

What if John has a gun as well and tells you he doesn't care about your considering property as sacred? What if John claims his right not to want any part of your personal value system?"

In addition, the moral sanction of property as such is problematic when you consider the history of property itself:

Ludwig von Mises writes:

"Private property is a human device. It is not sacred. It came into existence in early ages of history, when people with their own power and by their own authority appropriated to themselves what had previously not been anybody's property. Again and again proprietors were robbed of their property by expropriation. The history of private property can be traced back to a point at which it originated out of acts which were certainly not legal. Virtually every owner is the direct or indirect legal successor of people who acquired ownership either by arbitrary appropriation of ownerless things or by violent spoilation of their predecessor." (LvM)

https://mises.org/humanaction/chap24sec4.asp

Edited December 4, 2010 by Xray

[anthony]

Although von Mises' quote is out of context, and I'm no expert on him, I admit I'm surprised at this. Was he being dismissive of property, or was he only giving the historical precedents?

It's inarguable that Rand had this spot-on : "There can be no individual rights, without property rights."

The fruits of one's mind and labor take their physical form in possessions and property.

Government has as its most important mandate the obligation to defend this right to property from others' deprivations... and to keep its own hands off its citizens' property, too. Otherwise, what would we need it for?

(My simplistic understanding.)

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

Although von Mises' quote is out of context, and I'm no expert on him, I admit I'm surprised at this. Was he being dismissive of property, or was he only giving the historical precedents?

It's inarguable that Rand had this spot-on : "There can be no individual rights, without property rights."

The fruits of one's mind and labor take their physical form in possessions and property.

Government has as its most important mandate the obligation to defend this right to property from others' deprivations... and to keep its own hands off its citizens' property, too. Otherwise, what would we need it for?

(My simplistic understanding.)

Tony

That pretty well sums it. Government in its least obnoxious form is an agency or institution for protecting the lives and property of the people who ordained the government in the first place. At its best, government is a guard or a watchman and a restorer of stolen property.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[nskinsella]

Rothbard: "In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property. "

"Should only be enforceable" is a priceless combination of contradictory terms. Since nothing can be enforced with a mere "should", Rothbard, by phrasing it like that, 'cuts off the bough he is sitting on', as we say in German). ;)

You need a course in reading comprehension.

It looks like you missed what I'm getting at. This was meant to be understood as the mere ouverture in a discussion with 'anti-statists' in whose minds private "property" resides as the ultimate, sacred value.

And since in their minds, the violation of that sacred value seems to warrant the use of force, it is about getting them to show their colors by asking them how they are going to go about it.

"So to anyone who says that a certain type of contract "should" be "enforceable", I'd continue:

"Should" is a bit wishy-washy; it's like telling people they 'should' not steal or they 'should' pay their taxes.

Therefore I'd suggest we leave the vague "should" floating up there; instead you can demonstrate with concrete examples what exactly you have in mind.

Suppose John has bought a house from you but hasn't paid it off yet. He has still quite a few rates to pay, but suddenly the payments stop. You want to throw John out of the house (which as long as the last rate has been paid, is still your property), but John has no intention of moving out. What do you do? Get him to move out at gunpoint? In short, I want a concrete demonstration of how things are going to work in that libertarian paradise of yours where everything governmental is obviously considered as 'evil'.

What if John has a gun as well and tells you he doesn't care about your considering property as sacred? What if John claims his right not to want any part of your personal value system?"

In addition, the moral sanction of property as such is problematic when you consider the history of property itself:

Ludwig von Mises writes:

"Private property is a human device. It is not sacred. It came into existence in early ages of history, when people with their own power and by their own authority appropriated to themselves what had previously not been anybody's property. Again and again proprietors were robbed of their property by expropriation. The history of private property can be traced back to a point at which it originated out of acts which were certainly not legal. Virtually every owner is the direct or indirect legal successor of people who acquired ownership either by arbitrary appropriation of ownerless things or by violent spoilation of their predecessor." (LvM)

https://mises.org/humanaction/chap24sec4.asp

The quote by mises is not denigrating property at all--just talking about how it arises. As for your denigrating comment: ""property" resides as the ultimate, sacred value. " -- this is just a disguised way to say that you are in favor of aggression in some cases. Covering it up by saying you don't hold property as "ultimate" or something is just one way to avoid admitting you favor criminality. This is akin to conservatives who denigrate Objectivists and libertarians as upholding liberty as "the only" value, which is a lie. The conservative says sure, sure, we favor liberty--but we have other values too; liberty is just one among many. We have to balance them. Or whatever. This is just a way to disguise the naked aggression of their stance: that they are (for whatever reason--who cares?) in favor of violating liberty in some cases. The libertarian is never JUST a libertarian; liberty (property, rights, whatever) is not our "only" value. It is not even our "top" value, whatever that means. It is just that we oppose aggression--we believe aggression is unjust. Period. Those who say they ahve "other" values or "yeah, I favor property but it's not 'sacred'" are just trying to avoid saying that in some cases, they do in fact favor the commission of violence against innocent people. In this respect they are identical to criminals and totalitarians and socialists: all of whom believe in aggression for one reason or another. As a victim of it, i don't give a damn that your own justification is "beter" than that of another criminal.

[sjw]

The quote by mises is not denigrating property at all--just talking about how it arises.

Depends on one's context. For those whom property rights (qua basic type of human right) are both sacred and not arbitrary, he was indeed denigrating it. No amount of "but he was taken out of context" is going to save that quote.

Shayne

[sjw]

I'm tired of you insisting on being thick-headed about trivialities in order to prevent a new idea from entering it. Not that I think anything I said was new, but you're so paranoid about what you think might be coming that you won't even permit it to get off the ground (not that I was necessarily going to share my thoughts on the topic).

Defending the notion of "intellectual force" is scarcely a triviality.

Wherever I used this phrase, I had it in quotes. You are not invited to presume that this is my term, nor presume additional meaning beyond what was implied in the context I used it in.

It would undercut the very foundation of the libertarian (including O'ist) idea of coercion -- so, no, I am not willing to let you "get off the ground" with this sloppy, undefined idea. No self-respecting Randian would.

You don't know what you're talking about. You presumptuously attribute some meaning of "intellectual force" to me, and then hack the strawman to death. You're being ridiculous.

Okay, so far you have established that in some cases communication can be one element in a causal chain that eventuates in an aggressive action. Of course, the same can be said of walking or driving to a destination, opening doors, choosing to wear a certain type of clothing, and a host of other actions.

We thus arrive at the big question: So what?

Ghs

Given the recklessness with which you've interpreted what I've written so far, there's no chance in hell I'm going further down this path.

Shayne

[sjw]

Although von Mises' quote is out of context, and I'm no expert on him, I admit I'm surprised at this. Was he being dismissive of property, or was he only giving the historical precedents?

I'm no expert either, but my understanding is that Mises was a proponent of a subjective theory of value. His was certainly not a moral case for rights.

It's inarguable that Rand had this spot-on : "There can be no individual rights, without property rights."

As with many other issues concerning individual rights, she didn't have it spot-on. The actual truth is that right are indivisible. You can't have one right when another is violated. There is no way to respect property rights without also respecting right to speech, but also there is no way to respect right to speech without also respecting right to property. This is because a rights are rights to action, and any interference with your action is an interference with your person. If you reach out and grab an apple and someone slaps your arm, they've interfered with your action. Any violation of a right is directly comparable to that: someone stopping you from acting.

Shayne