| | Joseph,
I concur with your analysis. I would like to expand on this topic from a slightly different viewpoint.
We must define the relevant terms, "fraud" and "force". Fraud is the act of knowingly deceiving a person in an attempt to get something of value from them. Often, such an act involves the misrepresentation of the value that the swindler will provide in exchange for some value currently in possession of the victim. For example, I might propose to you that you provide two loaves of bread (items of value) to me in exchange for a healthy bushel of apples, (also items of value). If I do not tell you that the apples are infested with worms, I have attempted to defraud you by misrepresenting the value that I will provide to you. How do we define "value"? Value is a quality indicating that a particular item can be of some benefit to an individual. What is benefit? "Benefit" is something that promotes or enhances well-being. What is the standard for measuring whether or not something promotes well-being? The standard for such a determination can only be one thing: man's life. Therefore, fraud is the act of stripping the victim of some good or service that he deems as necessary to his life while falsely promising to provide a good or service deemed valuable by the victim in return. In short, fraud is the act of stealing a person's means of survival. Whether or not I defraud you of food or of a pair of diamond earrings is irrelevant, even though the first of these appears more directly tied to your survival than the latter. Presumably, you would have at some point traded value (e.g. money, goods, or services) for the pair of diamond earrings. Being a rational person, you did so only after haven satisfied your basic needs of survival, such as food. If the actions of fraudsters prevent you from effectively planning how to spend your value; whether it be in the form of money, goods, or services; you have likewise been stripped of your means of survival.
"Force", in the context of this discussion, can only mean one thing: physical force. How else can a person be forced to do something (e.g. hand over something of value) without being physically forced to do so? When a person is forced to do something, that person is necessarily giving up a value to the brute doing the enforcement. This is readily apparent given the fact that if I person does not value what they are giving up, why would they have to be forced to give it up? The value that the victim gives up may be obvious, as would be the case if I were mugged at gunpoint and forced to hand over my money. The value may be less obvious if I am forced to give up something that is less tangible, such as my time or my moral principles. Whatever the case, the concept of force in the context of this discussion is fairly simple: a brute poses a physical threat and a victim consequently hands over something of value. As we saw in the discussion of fraud above, depriving a man of value is the equivalent of depriving him of the right to his own life.
Therefore, fraud and force are similar in that the aim of both is the same: to strip a man of his right to life. The methodology, however, is different.
I am reminded of Rand's discussion of Attila and the Witch Doctor in For the New Intellectual (an example that Rand credits to Nathaniel Branden). Attila is a brute who uses physical force to deprive his victims; the Witch Doctor is essentially a swindler whose preferred method is fraud.
|
|
