This isn’t so much a question as it is just me pointing out something that may or may not already be obvious.
Feel free to agree or disagree.
Recently I realized the state is divided on at least two issues.
On Crime: First it sides with the libertarian definition punishing harm(defined strictly as aggression against persons or property) such as theft,rape,murder etc.But This definition is not extended far enough and is held in a contradictory fashion with a much more vague definition of crime as any act which may possibly result in harm(defined to include aggression but also ‘emotional harm’, '‘spiritual harm’ even offense) using this definition it bans speeding,racially offensive speech, slander etc.Linked with this definition of crime is of course the idea of ‘positive rights’ ( rights which are said require compulsion of others to be exercised).
The state and statists in general are completely in a state of confusion as to how to iron out the contradictions and problems in holding these two conflicting definitions.They fail to see that the second definition in effect means that potentially all acts are criminal and that there is no distinction between legal acts and illegal acts except maybe being dead.
On property & ownership:
Typically the state leans towards accepting a theory close though not exactly like,homesteading.They accept that if a resource was unowned then it is ok to call it yours (I’m thinking mostly of land for building here in remote areas-I could be wrong on this)However again this is not taken to it’s logical conclusions and is only held in part side by side in contradiction with another theory.
This other theory is the mutualist one.Here use determines ownership(though often slightly modified by time of use).If your somethings user then your it’s owner.The state favours this theory since it can use it to claim that because it fixes roads it owns them or it owns government builidings.It also applies this to land ignoring past homesteaders when appropriate.This theory is also generally held by statists.They will oftentimes argue that even if an original homesteader of land can be found ,the person who has worked on the land for 25 years should be owner.
So, according to libertarian law, if person A intentionally tells a lie about person B with the intention of defaming person B in the eyes of persons XYZ and the lie does harm person B’s reputation, that’s not considered an actionable offence?
EDIT: I’m also unclear about your objection to imposing speed limits. Isn’t it entirely possible that in a libertarian society, private roadowners would institute and attempt to enforce speed limits so that people would feel safe driving on that particular road?
So, according to libertarian law, if person A intentionally tells a lie about person B with the intention of defaming person B in the eyes of persons XYZ and the lie does harm person B’s reputation, that’s not considered an actionable offence?
While I consider calumny to be despicable, I don’t believe it is necessary to have penal laws against it.
A claim remains a claim until further evidence is offered. Questions will arise as to the source of the claim. A newspaper that publishes defamatory comments from a shaky source will soon lose its own reputation and readership. In that sense, character assassination is a game that can easily backfire in the fairest way possible: a reputation for a reputation.
Of course, there’s the problem of “aliquid semper haeret” - a bad case of calumny will always leave some marks. But once the damage is done, I don’t see how a penal law against character assassination could help a plaintiff.
“But once the damage is done, I don’t see how a penal law against character assassination could help a plaintiff.”
Don’t quote me on this, but based on what I’ve researched so far, I think that most states treat defamation suits at the civil level rather than the criminal level. There may be criminal forms of defamation suits, I’m not really sure.
I do know, based on my research, that punitive damages are often rewarded to a plaintiff if they can show that their reputation has been substantially harmed by the intentional malicious lies of the defendant.