About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - 7:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Maybe we should first debate whether one has a "rights to one's reputation as property"? For whatever that means?

Starting with... Should "saying an untrue defamatory thing about a citizen" be a crime?

I would say that it should not be a crime. "Reputation" as this pole implies is... is not property. What people believe is not anyone's property but the belief holders.

Create an instance where its in my benefit to use government "retaliatory" force against a person that says defamatory statements... I'm at a loss of imagination.

Post 1

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - 7:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The oxymoronically anarcho-capitalist libertarian lawyer Stephan Kinsella argues (I believe unsuccessfully) for a scarcity theory of the nature of property and against intellectual property, including a right to one's reputation extending to legal protections against libel and slander.

Download his monograph Against Intellectual Property at Mises.org.

Post 2

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - 7:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Reputation is property according to Objectivist theory, Dean.

If you find your imagination insufficient, you can always look up criminal and civil libel at Wikipedia.




Post 3

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - 7:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean I don't agree with you, especially in the area of business, and especially with businesses carrying a brand name that depend on that brand name for their reputation. A false accusation of a bad business practice made against a business does sway customers away from it and it's simply fraudulent. The laws keep people from being dishonest and making fraudulent claims. I tend to agree with how the current laws work, if the slander or libel actually results in some kind of property damage, then compensation is due to the victim of the slander/libel.

By the way didn't Kinsella post on this forum before? Isn't he the IP attorney that actually does IP legal work for some company? I recall I asked if he would take legal action on behalf of the company he works for if another company took the same name and opened up a business right next to the company he works for, he said he wouldn't take any action against such a company to protect his employer's intellectual property. Because of this fraud he's carrying on with his client/employer, he obviously should have his license revoked and if he hasn't yet, should lose his job. And by the way that's not libel, since it's true.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - 8:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

That’s priceless, John. I forgot about that. Turned out he sues people left and right on patent infringement, for a living, while preaching that patents are in-and-of-themselves rights violations. Precious.

Reminds me of Valliant. Years ago on passion he came out against subpoenas. Said they “enslave” their targets. Told of Peikoff agreeing with him entirely and of Peikoff telling him that Rand never commented on subpoenas. (But she HAD commented on them—ON THE RADIO—I have a copy of the recording, and I posted her pro-subpoena comments.) On the same thread he disclosed that he, as a state prosecutor, issued hundreds of subpoenas. He enslaved hundreds!

When behavior belies…


Post 5

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - 8:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon I remember having a conversation with Valliant on Solopassion regarding subpoenas. You're right, he's a piece of work. When I pressed him why someone had the moral right to refuse to give information that could exonerate someone, or lead to someone's conviction, he just fell back on some solipsistic view of morality.

Post 6

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - 9:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Or was it that people will do the right thing—subpoena not needed—and if they don’t do the right thing then they must have a good reason not to. It was something like that, I think.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 2:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Even if one were to accept the premise in John's post #3, do you think that the federal government has the constitutional power to pass laws limiting free speech in this way, given the wording of the First Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

I say no, they don't have that power, despite SCOTUS rulings saying otherwise.

And I also maintain that this limitation on government power is incorporated to the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So, I voted "no" on this poll. Inconvenient as untrue statements may be to businesses, it is up to them to counter the slanders with the truth, rather than suing those who falsely malign them.

And, I don't believe that a person's reputation is their property, since reputation is what other people think of you. You don't hold property rights to the thoughts in someone else's head.

Slander and libel laws are a less bloody, watered down version of the duels fought back in frontier days, where people felt they had the right to kill others for saying things about them that they took umbrage to.

I felt that was wrong, and don't think that using lawyers rather than bullets changes the morality. If someone says bad things about you, tough shit, tell the truth and show that they're liars, rather than hiding behind suits.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 6:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,
Reputation is property according to Objectivist theory, Dean.
That's nice. But I don't accept ideas just because other people do.
If you find your imagination insufficient, you can always look up criminal and civil libel at Wikipedia.
I looked up libel but didn't find anything. What I'm looking for is some kind of property that is being destroyed or used against the owner's will. Well, I guess if you consider reputation as property, and I don't, then that is where our disagreement is. I currently think its incorrect to think of reputation as property. Why should I change position?

John,
does sway customers away from it and it's simply fraudulent.
I agree that it's "fraudulent". But there is no agreement between the slanderer and anyone else where they are now not offering some service or product which they had previously agreed to provide-- no break of verbal or written contract. I'd just say "Wah wah cry baby, wah wah" to the defendant.

Post 9

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 7:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean, simply typing in "libel" at wikipedia will take you to the article on defamation. It will give you a very good overview of the appropriate history and terminology and a link to the article on US defamation law. You might also read Kinsella's monograph for an opposing view. Rand's view is in the article on copyright and patent law in Capitalism.

If I understand you, you are implying that something can only be property if it can be destroyed? Are you saying that a reputation cannot be destroyed? And are you saying that a person cannot be deprived of other types of supposed property unless that property can be destroyed? There are plenty of obvious counterexamples to that.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 7:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Jim that congress has no right to make laws prohibiting free speech. However, laws regarding libel and slander are not about the right of free speech, but about malicious and destructive behavior.

Saying a person doesn't "own" their reputation, that it is only an perception in others minds, is an unfortunate splitting of hairs. Reputations are built, sometimes at great cost, by parties that earn them. Some other reputations (good or bad) may be unearned. Nevertheless, for some, reputation is a value that they have worked hard to earn, and which has a commercial value which, though possibly hard to ascertain, is a true value. Making knowingly or irresponsibly false statements can be damaging to a persons (or company's) reputation, and correspondingly damaging to their livelihood. It certainly should be punishable by law.

jt

Post 11

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 9:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean:

I agree that it's "fraudulent". But there is no agreement between the slanderer and anyone else where they are now not offering some service or product which they had previously agreed to provide-- no break of verbal or written contract. I'd just say "Wah wah cry baby, wah wah" to the defendant.


Why do you think there needs to be a contract? It's a criminal act (or at least as far as I know it can be). If I smashed all of your car windows, would I not have to pay restitution to you because I have no contract with you? Of course you are saying no property is damaged from the slander so operating from that premise I can see how you may think no restitution is due, but that premise is false. Because of the slander, a business loses its business, that is a destruction of property, and its destruction was due to malicious behavior. But even without this malicious aspect of behavior, you can still sue me for damages if say I accidentally destroyed your property, like say a car accident. We don't need to be in a contract with each other for you to sue me for damages made to your car from that accident. So this appeal that compensatory damages to be justifiable in any context must require a contract is not a rational one.

Jim:

Even if one were to accept the premise in John's post #3, do you think that the federal government has the constitutional power to pass laws limiting free speech in this way


It's not free speech if it violates someone's rights. When we speak of free speech, we are talking about your rights to it within a political context, it's a shame in the English language we don't have a word that specifies that kind of freedom, in Greek it's called "eleftheria" it is a word specifically defined as political freedom, not the kind of freedom an anarchist thinks you have, that being a context-less physical freedom where you can do anything despite the destruction it causes to other people's property.

Inconvenient as untrue statements may be to businesses, it is up to them to counter the slanders with the truth, rather than suing those who falsely malign them.


So because of someone else's malicious and destructive behavior, a company has to spend its own money to conduct a PR campaign to clear up the lies made against them? As a business owner of a brand name hotel I find this idea disconcerting. Apparently according to this philosophy, anyone can destroy my business by spreading lies about it and they can do so with impunity, since there is no cost to bear by the slanderer for his lies, only the victim would then bear almost an unlimited amount of cost to clear up its name because it could be subjected to endless lies about it reputation, driving it straight to bankruptcy. In this kind of world, I could see my competitors trying to do this to me, and likewise in an endless tit for tat war I could respond in kind. They could even run ads with the lies. Better yet, forget anymore new competitors entering into a particular marketplace, a large company with vast resources could simply drive out any smaller competitors by running these malicious ad campaigns against them, which these smaller competitors would not be able to enter the marketplace because they could not afford to defend itself or likewise strike back with lies against this larger competitor.





(Edited by John Armaos on 10/21, 10:00am)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 10:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim, perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me, but aren't you a supporter of some form or another of anarchy? If so, I don't understand attempting to use the constitution as a basis for an argument. I recognize that an anarchist is almost required to argue against the validity of any right that would be hard, if not impossible to protect without a government that has a set of laws - like intellectual property rights or the right not to be defamed.

Free speech never includes yelling, "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, nor telling lies to perpetrate a fraud, nor telling lies to harm someone - a fairly simple derivative of fraud or assault. Spread a lie that a particular grocery chain had been buying tainted food while selling it's stock short would be fraud, or spreading a false rumor that a particular surgeon is on drugs - out of malice - would be an assault. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

Post 13

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 11:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve, I'm wouldn't say I'm an absolutely pure anarcho-capitalist. Rather, I'm a supporter of having competition between forms of government, rather than having a monopoly governance in a geographic area, and with all governmental services being offered on an ala carte basis, with individuals having the right to decline to purchase some or all of those services and use private providers instead. That is, individuals could choose to basically go anarchic and essentially choose not to purchase any governmental services at all, or to purchase a lot of governmental services, according to their tastes and values.

That doesn't prevent me from supporting those aspects of the Constitution that I agree with. In particular, as you approach the most minimalist government possible, bordering on anarcho-capitalism, you still need a structure to support the NIOF principle, much of which is embodied in the Bill of Rights.

Post 14

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 11:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim as far as I can understand your position, that's actually not anarchy. Picking and choosing rights protection services is not anarchy so long as those services abide by a uniform code of laws, so long as the due process is the same, you can pick between competing police agencies since they all must operate under the same laws. Anarchy would be defined as not having any objectively defined due process, and each competing agency or individual could come up with their own idea of what is justifiable force. But the problem with that is this is purely subjective, someone's idea of legitimate force could very well be immoral, and since no uniform law exists, there would be no mechanism to correct such an immoral action except civil war. And also if an action was moral, another competing faction may disagree, since there would be no agreed upon rule of law, and again carry out attacks against that competitor.

That doesn't prevent me from supporting those aspects of the Constitution that I agree with. In particular, as you approach the most minimalist government possible, bordering on anarcho-capitalism, you still need a structure to support the NIOF principle, much of which is embodied in the Bill of Rights.


And this would meet the definition of a uniform set of laws, i.e. a single Constitution for a geographical area. You just don't agree with all of the aspects of the Constitution, neither do I, but you still think there should be *a* constitution that defines what man's rights are, and what the due process ought to be for the protection of those rights, so that the process or retaliation itself does not become an initiation of force.

But your appeal to the "right of free speech" in the Constitution is not an argument against libel or slander, since I and a few others here are arguing libel and slander are not forms of free speech, just as assaulting someone is not a form of the freedom of movement.

Post 15

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 11:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think John Armaos has made some good points here, in particular about free speech not extending to offering fraudulent contracts. But I do have some (possibly hair-splitting) objections, so here goes a theoretical example to clarify my POV:

Let's say there's a company out there called Armaos Widget Manufacturing (AWM), with a major competitor, LSSWM (Lying Sack of Shite Widget Manufacturers).

LSSWM creates and airs some ads fraudulently saying "AWM makes widgets of inferior metal. LSSWM uses better materials. Buy quality -- buy LSSWM widgets today!"

Let's stipulate that these claims are false, that in fact AWM is a reputable manufacturer that uses better metal (specifically, Reardon Steel), because their CEO, J. Armaos, has integrity and would never give poor value or inferior quality, while LSSWM in fact uses cheap pig iron.

Who is injured? And what legal redress should they have?

The injured parties are people who buy LSSWM widgets based on these false statements, and they should have the right to sue LSSWM for fraudulently representing the terms of an offered contract.

AWM is not an injured party, even though their reputation is maligned, because their reputation -- the thoughts in people's head about the integrity of AWM and its CEO -- belong to people who hold these thoughts, not to CEO J. Armaos or his company. AWM does not own its prior or anticipated future customers or market share -- they will get future sales or not depending on how well they manage their business.

Now, that doesn't mean that AWM can't put out their owns ads telling everyone of the falsity of LSSWM's ads, and explaining that LSSWM has committed actionable fraud, and telling them how to go about suing LSSWM, thus driving them out of business.

But AWM does NOT own their prior customers, or the thoughts about AWM in those prior customers' heads. They keep the repeat business to the extent that they can convince them that their Reardon Steel widgets are superior to LSSWM's pig iron widgets, and that their business practices are based on honesty and integrity.

Now, suppose a disgruntled former customer of AWM, pays money to take out ads maligning AWM, saying the same false statements about the inferior quality of the metal used.

That former customer is not committing contractual fraud, because they are not trying to induce anyone to enter into a contract with them. AWM's recourse? The truth, using ads or word of mouth to rebut the charges and show that they use only the finest Reardon Steel in their products.

Post 16

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 11:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John: "Jim as far as I can understand your position, that's actually not anarchy."

John, you're right. I'm agnostic about whether in the future a workable pure anarcho-capitalism is possible, but I'm fine with a system like I described, where an individual can choose not to pay any taxes whatsoever but opting out of purchasing any services from the government.

I'm not hung up on labels, or purity, but rather on removing the ability of any level of government to coerce or command in any way other than to enforce the NIOF principle.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 3:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim, when you talk about, "competition between forms of government", if you are using the word "government" so as to include laws - and it appears that might be the case since you refer to geographical jurisdiction, then you are advocating anarchy. A person under your system could "choose" not to obey a law from government A, even though the law is a very careful statement of an individual right. He could opt to obey laws of Government B, even though some of those laws violate individual rights, or opt to be a pure anarchist and claim to be exempt from any laws. Government's primary service is the creation of the legal definitions for individual rights

It is not valid to conceive of individual rights that are in conflict with each other, or to imagine that someone can ethically choose between a false individual right and a legitimate individual right as if they were moral or logical equals.

The same thing is true of the laws that should be implementations of valid, actual individual rights. You can't ethically "chose" to violate a right. And you can't ethically chose to ignore a law that properly stands in protection of a right.
----------

In your example, when the bad manufacturer knowingly makes false statements that defame the good manufacturer - the good manufacturer is harmed - not just the customers that are mislead.

Example: Someone is angry at a dentist for whatever reason, and makes up, and spreads around a lie that the dentist fondles patients and takes naked pictures of them when they are under anesthesia. Do you think there has been no damage, no violation of rights? Fraud as an ethical concept is a much broader concept than just what is covered in the law regarding contracts or commercial transactions.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 3:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"AWM makes widgets of inferior metal. LSSWM uses better materials. Buy quality -- buy LSSWM widgets today!"

Seriously, Jim, is this a joke?

That's not libel. That's subjectively vague advertising.

Libel is something like Jack Huberman attributing manufactured quotes supporting slavery and the murderer of Martin Luther King to Rush Limbaugh. That sort of damages isn't something Limbaugh can address with an advertising campaign. Limbaugh can't prove a negative, that he never said something. That's why traditional libel law requires someone like Huberman to show the truth of his statement. "However, the common law of libel reverses the traditional positions somewhat: a defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth." The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. And how, exactly, is someone like Limbaugh to be recompensed for losing a once in a lifetime opportunity like his chance to buy an NFL franchise? This is not a matter of public opinion, it is a matter of actual damages.

There is just a little bit of a difference between libel and a fight between Burger King and Wendy's over who has the best burgers.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 3:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Qualitative statements that are subjective are not libel or slander.

Let's say there's a company out there called Armaos Widget Manufacturing (AWM), with a major competitor, LSSWM (Lying Sack of Shite Widget Manufacturers).

LSSWM creates and airs some ads fraudulently saying "AWM makes widgets of inferior metal. LSSWM uses better materials. Buy quality -- buy LSSWM widgets today!"


The problem with this example is that how a product can be considered inferior or superior to another is a qualitative statement that is subjective to the consumer. What makes the metal inferior to one person may not be an attribute another considers to be inferior. For example, one could say McDonald's has better tasting french fries than Burger King, and therefore say McDonald's has superior french fries, but this isn't something that can be considered objectively true or false. It all depends on the personal preferences of the consumer. If however one said that Burger King uses only poisonous potatoes for their french fries, this is a statement that can be objectively verified. If then it's a falsehood, it could be considered slander since Burger King only uses non-poisonous potatoes for their french fries.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.