Would you agree that the threat of invasion (using Rothbard’s definition of “invasion”) isn’t an actual invasion?
You haven’t created anything, it’s still just a value judgement in the eye of the beholder. What’s to stop me having an unwarrantedly low opinion of you and expressing it to others? Will you sue me?
Yes.
Hard Rain: Slander and libel deal with statements of facts, not opinions. “That guy’s a jerk” is clearly your personal opinion and is neither true nor false. “That guy is poisoning your food” is a statement of fact and is either true or false. “That guy wants to poison your food” also implies some factual statement; it is implied that the speaker has it on good authority that the guy is aiming to poison your food. If the speaker knows he is peddling falsehoods, and does so with malicious intent, he is guilty of slander.
Thanks. Going with Rothbard’s definition of “fraud” - “appropriation of someone else’s property without his consent” - do you think we could then say that slander, libel, false advertising, and/or false witness/perjury can be considered instances of threat of fraud?
All irrelevent. Check out the Walter Block book I linked to earlier in this thread:
“Whether his reputation was “taken from him” by fair means or foul, by truth or falsehood, he did not own it in the first place and, hence, should have no recourse to the law for damages.”
Well I’m not sure I want to go with Rothbard’s definition, but I do think these things are at least similar to fraud. If I say, “Bob is poisoning the town’s food!”, it is implied that I have some information concerning this statement. If I actually have no information about Bob’s activities, or worse, know that there is no truth to this statement at all, then I have intentionally misled the audience (the consumers of my declarations). I don’t think this jives well with my preferred definition of fraud, but I’m not intent on proving that it is a case of fraud.
Hard Rain: In your words, “All irrelevant.” You asked Fluke if you should be sued for voicing your low opinion of him; I replied that that is not what slander and libel laws are about. You’ve now circled back to the all-rights-are-property-rights angle, which is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. My clarification is correct whether or not you “own” your reputation, and whether or not damages can only be claimed in an instance of property rights violations.
[quoteuser=“Michael J Green”]
I was convinced that a person does not “own” his reputation the first time I read Block. I am not so convinced that torts should be limited to property rights violations. An orderly society might need rules that deal with more than just property rights.
[/quote]
Do you feel denigration, even in the truthful form, would be illegal in our hypothetical society’s customary law?
Here are a few points from Block I just want to point out:
[quoteuser=“Block”]
Whether his reputation was “taken from him” by fair means or
foul, by truth or falsehood, he did not own it in the first place
and, hence, should have no recourse to the law for damages…
…Finally, paradoxical though it may be, reputations would
probably be more secure without the laws which prohibit
libelous speech! With the present laws prohibiting libelous falsehoods,
there is a natural tendency to believe any publicized slur
on someone’s character…
…The public would soon learn to digest and evaluate the statements
of libelers and slanderers—if the latter were allowed free
rein. No longer would a libeler or slanderer have the automatic
power to ruin a person’s reputation.
[/quote]
God, these forums really need an overhaul. Take 2:
Again, I am not talking about denigration. Some people may conflate denigration with slander/libel, but I do not, so you guys are establishing straw men. Obviously, I do not think denigration should be or would be illegal. As for slander and libel, I don’t know. As information is getting cheaper and cheaper to acquire these days, a future libertarian society may have no need for such laws. Victims may find that the damage done to them (as they see it) is not worth the costs of going to court and seeking reparations. Just as copyright law is becoming obsolete as it becomes easier to violate copyright and, therefore, more costly to find and extract damages from violators. In both cases, those who are (supposedly) ‘wronged’ must figure out ways to deal with it outside the legal system.
No need to be condescending. I’m not making a straw man because I’m not making an argument, it was a honest question. I do appreciate the input however, comparing defamation laws to copyright is interesting.
Hmm? I didn’t mean to be condescending, and I don’t think my accusing you and Rain of establishing straw men (but not yet knocking them down!) need be taken as condescension. Just clarifying and making sure to stop miscommunication in its tracks. Know that I am enjoying this myself, and am actually peeved that the discussion is dying down.
My mistake. Sorry, I’m new to this forum thing. I do not have time to spur up a counterpoint at the present moment but I’ll get back to this when I can.