Violating Rights

Can rights be violated by a means other than the initiation of physical force?

Post 1

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:11am

Of course they can. Through wilful damage, theft or fraud.

Post 2

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:48am

Willful damage, theft, and fraud all involve the initiation of force.

Post 3

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 10:02am

I took it to mean that he was referring to "physical" force against an individual.

Post 4

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 11:36am

Why would you think that?

Post 5

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 12:50pm

Um.....because he used the word "physical".

Post 6

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:44pm

But you added "...against an individual."

The original question did not specify that it was "against the individual" so the assumption should be that it included both the individual and his property.

Why did you narrow the focus to the individual?

Post 7

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 4:13pm

Let's not get into a silly argument about what Robert meant, and let him get back to us if he wishes.

Post 8

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 4:47pm

Perhaps it is confusing. Lose the word physical.

What prompted this is a debate I am having on another site.

assertion:>>Her assumption that rights can only be violated by force is unargued for.

My response:I do not understand this question? Your premise is that rights can be violated in some other way. In what other way can rights be violated?

His Response: Well, one obvious way is that you might leave your bike leaning against a wall, and I come along and ride off on it. No force involved at all!

Me again: He has a point. No force was involved, yet my right to property was violated.

Just thought I'd bounce this off you guys and see if Rand had ever tackled this quibble.

Post 9

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 5:01pm

I always took the definition of "force" to include the theft or damage to property.

Just because the owner was not physically standing by his or her property does not mean that they have no desire to keep it intact.

If they still have the desire to keep their property, then the thief or vandal has still used force to acquire it or damage it - even if the owner was not directly involved.

Post 10

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 6:58pm

(I don't know why, but we have two threads by the same name. This appears in the other one, which is inaccessible from the main menu.)

You could enslave thousands of people for successive generations by keeping them ignorant. The use of force would be minimal. In fact, I think that this is actually how the world got to be the way it is.

Fraud is a difficult problem. The only solution I see for it is to start from the fact that morality is personal. I do not mean that morality is subjective, but that it starts with you. For an example, consider the episode in The Fountainhead where the swindlers hired Roark because they considered him the worst they could find. Aside from the financial problems with the development, was their plan fraudulent? They intended it to be. Therefore, it was. Conversely, there have been a couple of occasions, when, buying an ancient Greek coin via the mails, I have written back to the dealer, making sure that he knew that the coin he sent me was better (higher grade; uncommon variety) than what he advertised.

Ancient numismatics and numismatics in general is a marketplace where dealers are wrongfully assumed to be experts. The buyer, the collector, is often the true expert and the dealer is forced to be a generalist. Therefore, the seller is at a disadvantage, something that discussions of "fraud" often fail to take into account.

So, it is not clear to me what constitutes fraud.

An obvious case would be failure to deliver. Pure and simple, you keep the money and do not hand over the goods or perform the services. In that case, fraud is the same as theft. We might call it "looting by stealth."

Post 11

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 6:59pm

On the premise that morality is personal, I wonder what constitutes force.

I believe that we are wrong to assume that everyone is created equal. Different people obviously have different abilities. In medieval Iceland, during its heroic age, all men were assumed to be equal at combat. So, open combat was sanctioned. To us today, that would be clearly a case of the strong oppressing the weak as size matters when your weapons are swords and axes. Therefore, in America, we have said that men were not born equal but that Col. Colt made them equal. The handgun is the great equalizer. A woman or a child could take down the largest man, to say nothing of the marginally smaller man.

I believe that a similar range of differences applies mentally.

Education is the great equalizer. Those of use who are less clever can read and memorize the ideas of other people and expand our understanding, so as not to be bullied by those who are clever, witty, and malevolent.

I believe that there exist variables in mental power, analogous, to speed, strength, agility, and endurance in physical power.

Therefore, so called "high pressure salesmen" are aggressors who prey on the weak.

The question is not whether making an empassioned and motivating appeal is right or wrong, but what your intent is in making such an appeal.

The problem then becomes one of proving intent.

Post 12

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 1:42am

"It is not clear to me what constitutes fraud."

Fraud is usually any type of deception by one party over another that causes the second party financial loss.

Just one example would be, if you lied about your companies profits in order to push your sharemarket price up.
Not only have you defrauded investors in your stock, but you have also defrauded the entire sharemarket.

Post 13

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 6:39am

Marcus wrote: "Fraud is usually any type of deception by one party over another that causes the second party financial loss.
"Just one example would be, if you lied about your companies profits in order to push your sharemarket price up. Not only have you defrauded investors in your stock, but you have also defrauded the entire sharemarket."

Blah... blah... blah... Come on, Marcus! The Science Guy can do better than that.

How did I "lie" (so-called) about my "profits" (however defined). I had a great year! Cash sales were down, sure, but we built tremendous good will, so our assets have greatly improved.

You must know that you can keep all the parallel books you want. What your "real" situation is up to every investor to know. You must have seen Boiler Room. Seth actually tracked down the pharmaceutical firms and found them to be storefronts. Ultimately, that is every investor's responsibility and people with too much money and not enough respect for it throw it away on other people's opinions.

I am sorry. I think that I understand what you are trying to say. My point is that if you actually say it empircally and rationally, you say something at once very restricted and also very broad and not at all what most people seem to mean.

And what about the reverse? As I pointed out, we always pin the blame on the seller. Is it "fraud" (so-called) for someone to "cherry pick" an uninformed seller? Why not? Since the sales is a two-way transaction, dishonesty is also a two-way street.

I believe that "fraud" (so-called) is not carefully defined.

Post 14

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 7:15am

Michael,

First you state that you don't know what Fraud is and now you are lecturing me on it?
Methinks you were just looking for an argument.

"Is it "fraud" (so-called) for someone to "cherry pick" an uninformed seller?"

No it is not. There is a clear difference. You are not lying to the customer.

If you say that your profit is 20 million and it was only 2 million - then you are deceiving your investors in order to get a higher price for your stock.

If you sell someone a "giblet" for $50, when the current market price is $5, then you have not lied to them. If they are that stupid and do not compare prices - then a fool and his money are soon parted.

However, if you said to the consumer - buy this "giblet" for $50 because it's the cheapest on the market - and he buys it. Then you have committed Fraud!!!!

Just as when you say your profits are 20 million (therefore I can expect big dividends) and they are not, you are also committing fraud.

Post 15

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 6:47am

Marcus, I question our basic assumptions on "fraud" (so-called). We inherited these feelings from altruists and collectivists who denigrated merchants. The problem is deep.

I asked rhetorically if a buyer who cherrypicks a seller is engaged in fraud, and you said, no, because the buyer is not lying to the seller. Yes, they are. They are telling the buyer that the merchandise is common when it is not. The basic assumption that I make is that every transaction is at once a bilateral purchase and sale. The "buyer" (so-called) is selling dollars.

We inherited a primitive way of seeing merchants as a special class of people from a time when people were in classes.

The essence of capitalism is that we are ALL traders.

Therefore, if it is possible for a "seller" (so-called) to "lie" (however defined), then it must be possible for a "buyer" (so-called) to do the same thing. However, we do not approach the problem that way. The reason that we do not is that our thinking has been limited for us by the collectivised educational system, mass media, etc.,

Clear thinking on this requires getting down to the basic premises.

Failure to deliver is theft. I can understand that. It seems to me that "fraud" is like "greed" or "selfishness."

Marcus wrote: "... if you said to the consumer - buy this "giblet" for $50 because it's the cheapest on the market - and he buys it. Then you have committed Fraud!!!!"

You know that this statement can be hacked into little pieces.
     1. What if you believe this is the case, but it is not? Is your intent, alone, the crime? I made up a case above where my books are "inflated" because I "overvalue" good will. Who is to say? Suppose I have a cash-based system but I have a huge amount of sales out on credit. How much should that be discounted in the minds of investors? And who is to decide those answers of how much?
     2.  What if you sell it for $50 intending a rip-off (granted, for the moment... but watch this... nothing up my sleeve...) and they turn around and sell it for $500 because you did not know that it is a rare variety for which great demand exists elsewhere? Who "cheated" whom?
     3. Cheapest on the market in terms of what? I mean, you can buy giblets all over town, but this one here is here right now. What is your time worth? Who pays transportation costs?
    4. Are all giblets equal? Perhaps as commodities they are. On the other hand, no two of anything are identical. A thing is identical only to itself.

Post 16

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 3:52pm

"I asked rhetorically if a buyer who cherrypicks a seller is engaged in fraud, and you said, no, because the buyer is not lying to the seller. Yes, they are. They are telling the buyer that the merchandise is common when it is not."

Eh? What does cherry picking a buyer have to do with the sale of common merchandise?

"What if you believe this is the case, but it is not?"

Well, an honest mistake would not be fraud.

"What if you sell it for $50 intending a rip-off (granted, for the moment... but watch this... nothing up my sleeve...) and they turn around and sell it for $500 because you did not know that it is a rare variety for which great demand exists elsewhere?"

Nothing wrong with that - there was no deception on the buyers part - he is not obligated to tell the seller what the true price is. Neither is the seller obligated to tell the buyer.

"Cheapest on the market in terms of what?"

In terms of price.

"Are all giblets equal?"

Yes! Don't you know your giblets? Sheesh!

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 3/10, 4:02am)

Post 17

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 2:56am

Marcus, as far as I can tell from the facts and the reasons that explain them, the only fraud is failure to deliver.

"Misrepresentation" (so-called) stems from a mystic-altruist-collectivist misunderstanding of human action.

Defining "fraud" as failure to deliver reduces it to theft. Therefore, there is no such thing as fraud.

Post 18

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 6:51am

"Marcus, as far as I can tell from the facts and the reasons that explain them, the only fraud is failure to deliver."

Failure to deliver, means failure to honour an agreement to supply the goods or services originally offered in exchange for money paid.

So why is it not also fraud when a seller on purpose gives incorrect information about a product so that someone will buy it? Have they not also in this way "failed to deliver" what they claimed?

Post 19

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 7:52am