I’m not sure where I stand on this. On one hand, I believe in free speech, and that words can’t physically harm me or my property. On the other, I recognize that if somebody makes a false claim against me, it could hurt my business. I’m learning towards the “it’s not aggression” side, but I’m wondering what others think.
somebody could make a false claim against you that might help your business…
somebody could make a true claim against you that might hurt your business…
its not aggression
Help me answer these questions:
What if a stranger makes a false claim against your product that might help your business?
What if a stranger make a true claim against your product that might hurt your business?
What if your friend makes a false claim against your product that might help your business?
What if your friend makes a true claim against your product that might hurt your business?
What if your relative makes a false claim against your product that might help your business?
What if your relative makes a true claim against your product that might hurt your business?
What if you make a false claim against your product that might help your business?
What if you make a true claim against your product that might hurt your business?
Does the last two questions constitute as false advertising, and therefore fraud?
its the difference between mere promises and actual rothbardian contracts
Is “coercion is an actual physical embodiment of a denial of a property right”? Or more simple is coercion the denial of a property right?
Coercion is force. Are you sure we can say that a fraudster is using coercion? He doesn’t appear to be using any force. We could ask the question “what is force except for a violation of property rights?”. What then can we say when we use legitimate force in order to retrieve property stolen from us? Perhaps we could then say that the fraudster commits illegitimate force. But how to we distinguish between legimate and illegitimate? This can only be done, I believe, by defining what we mean by property rights. This is why I say that “property rights precedes coercion”. It may not be the best way to say it. I am trying to say that coercion derives from the concept of property rights or, better, that legitimate and illegimate force are defined by property rights.
I’ve only looked at Ethics of Liberty in this matter. I highly recommend it. I like Rothbard on the subject (though I recall quibbling on some issues). It would be good to read about the “proof” for natural rights that lead to property rights if anyone has a recommendation. Rothbard explicitly left that out of Ethics of Liberty. Property rights seem to me to be fundamental to the world view of liberarians. Otherwise, we could have a free and voluntary society in which the anarcho-communists go around putting their foot on the means of production (some of which may be legitimate and others not). I can understand why they like to call us propertarians. I don’t mind that term but I’m sure they see it as derogatory.
Other posters have questioned the definition of fraud. While it broadly means deception, it is generally used only for crimes in which the fraudster gains the other’s property.
1 a**:** deceit, trickery ; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b**:** an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
2 a**:** a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor ; also : one who defrauds : cheat b**:** one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
synonyms see deception, imposture
In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds. Defrauding people of money is presumably the most common type of fraud, but there have also been many fraudulent “discoveries” in art, archaeology, and science.
I was only addressing this usual meaning of the word i.e. 1a from the Webster
I mean that, If i say for example ‘your house now belongs to me’, that statement denies your property right, but it is not physically embodied, its a mere act of speech. yet if i went further and occupied your home, i am a criminal, or if i threaten you with violence not to challenge my assertion; then i am criminal. the latter isnt strictly embodied, but if you like, its a credible threat of embodiedness.
i dont know if i’ve helped or hurt…
Well done. Your next step is to clarify which contexts constitute as a title-transfer with a contract.
What if Bob makes a false claim against his product that might help his business? In what context does that constitute fraud? If Bob lied about his product, in which context does the lie constitute as a contract, not a mere promise, on a title-transfer?
Suppose Bob made a public speech lying about his product. Does that constitute as a contract binding on his product? What if his relatives made a speech lying about his product?
If Bob has written a false product review of his product in a consumer review magazine, does that constitute as a binding contract on a title-transfer?
bob has a store selling jackets.
bob’s jackets.
1)bob tells people that his jackets will get them laid more often.
2)bob tells them his jackets are made of real leather (though they arent’ they are fake leather).
1)in the first case, they recieve jackets indistinguishable with jackets about which claims to increasing sexual power are false, or indeterminate. yet, they are jackets.
2)in the second case, they recieve jackets that are materially different from leather jackets.
is there an important difference here, or is it mumbo-jumbo?
David owns a store which sells ice cream. One day, Eric vandalizes his store by putting grafitti on the store’s window. The grafitti marking has words that says “the ice cream contains poison.” How much restitution should David get?
Should the restitution include the damage from the defamation markings? Or should cost the restitution equal merely the paint damage on his window? But because defamation is legal, shouldn’t David merely obtain restitution for the paint markings?
Jenna is a women who gets irritated of anyone who sees her nude. One day, Kevin trespassed into Jenna’s house and took a picture of Jenna without clothing in her bathroom. Assume that blackmail is legal.
Should Jenna obtain restitution merely for Kevin’s trespassing? Or should Jenna obtain restitution for Kevin’s trespassing in addition to her emotional distress of her blackmail? But because blackmail is legal, shouldn’t Jenna merely obtain damages for Kevin’s trespassing?
Assume that Jenna cannot not prove any damages caused by the trespassing, except for the blackmail. But blackmail is legal, and the victim should not be compensated. Does Kevin need to even pay any damages at all?
Lena is a girl who gets harrassed by men. Previously, a man named Matt verbally offended Lena by calling her names. This time, another man named Tom slapped her on the face. Because of free speech, Matt does not need to pay restitution for Lena. However, does Tom need to pay restitution for Lena?
Suppose that Lena gets equally offended by the name-calling and the face-slapping. Libertarians usually support restitution for the face-slapping because it physically violates her. But Lena experiences the same emotional intensity for both acts. It seems unfair that Lena cannot obtain restitution for mere name-calling.
John threw a beanie-baby at Christina. Christina became offended. Does Christina have the right to seek restitution? What if John threw a dust-particle at Christina. Does Christina have the right to seek damages?
The dust-particle and beanie-baby are title-transfers, not mere speech acts. But why should Christina be compensated for the emotional damage for the dust-particle and the beanie-baby when she does not have the right to seek compensation for mere speech acts?
Should Bob’s consumers seek emotional damage for Bob’s lie of “increased sexual powers” because it does not deal with title-transfers? How about “increased power to defend against beanie-babies”?
is it fair to ask a dozen questions of me when i am trying to discource in good faith. and have made a position which presumably you want to critique but fail to directly respond to or connect your questions to. are you making me guess as to which question you pose is scoring which points against what i advocated?
if you would please adopt a policy of responding in good faith i will engage you in kind.
Sorry if I made you angry. See the last question:
Should Bob’s consumers seek emotional damage for Bob’s lie of “increased sexual powers” because it does not deal with title-transfers? How about “increased power to defend against beanie-babies”?
I am arguing that there are certain unresolved grey-areas in fraud and compensation regarding the title-transfer theory of property.
no and possibly (if i only understood what you meant).