Defamation in the stateless society

[Rillion]

Nor am I going to find many Christians who love their neighbor.  Or many Mormons who are on the same side of the war in heaven that they supposedly were on when they lived it.  What's that got to do w/ anything?

You're not going to find many libertarians who agree with you about simple lying being fraud because libertarians are against the initiation of force, and you haven't shown that lying on its own lives up to that.  Most libertarians, I understand, agree that fraud constitutes force when it means using deceit to manipulate someone out of money, because then it counts as theft.  But how do hurt feelings enter into that?  They don't. 

No, it is not fraudulent or lying to believe the holocaust never happened and communicate that belief.  Who said it was?

But it is  fraudulent to say that the holocaust never happened if you do  think it happened?  Tell me, what is the difference in terms of how people are affected?   Why should people be entitled to seek damages for one but not the other?  And in practical terms, how on earth are you going to figure out which is the case? 

Is this where I claim straw man?  Did you just mention Hitler?  Can I win on Godwin's Law now?

You can say you "win" based on whatever you want, but since I asked a valid question it would still make you look dumb.   And since I didn't compare you (or anyone) to Hitler or the Nazis, Godwin himself would say "No." 

Godwin's Law does not, however, claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust,"

[Ecolitan]

Nor am I going to find many Christians who love their neighbor.  Or many Mormons who are on the same side of the war in heaven that they supposedly were on when they lived it.  What's that got to do w/ anything?

You're not going to find many libertarians who agree with you about simple lying being fraud because libertarians are against the initiation of force, and you haven't shown that lying on its own lives up to that.  Most libertarians, I understand, agree that fraud constitutes force when it means using deceit to manipulate someone out of money, because then it counts as theft.  But how do hurt feelings enter into that?  They don't. 

No, it is not fraudulent or lying to believe the holocaust never happened and communicate that belief.  Who said it was?

But it is  fraudulent to say that the holocaust never happened if you do  think it happened?  Tell me, what is the difference in terms of how people are affected?   Why should people be entitled to seek damages for one but not the other?  And in practical terms, how on earth are you going to figure out which is the case? 

Is this where I claim straw man?  Did you just mention Hitler?  Can I win on Godwin's Law now?

You can say you "win" based on whatever you want, but since I asked a valid question it would still make you look dumb.   And since I didn't compare you (or anyone) to Hitler or the Nazis, Godwin himself would say "No." 

Godwin's Law does not, however, claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust,"

Sorry, I was editing the previous post while you posted this.  This might answer some of that

Supposing it did have anything to do with anything.  I agree that simply lying is not enough.  The statement: "I have a blue car" by itself is not a big deal even if the person saying it does not.  If someone walks into a bar and promises ten thousand dollars to anyone driving a blue car, the statement becomes fraud.  Another lie that I'd call fraud if I were on the jury: "I was just tested last week and I am 100% free of all STDs".

In the second case money didn't change hands.  I don't even know why I still have to argue that it is about money changing hands.  We've already established English is the language of the day.

I agree, hurt feelings are very subjective, that's what juries are for.  That's why I'm not concerned about cousin #1 but greatly concerned about cousin #2.  Yes, it's left up to the fallibility of 12 people, I can live with that.

As for Godwin's Law   hahahahaha   did you really just add that to the list of points worth debating here?  did you?  really?  Isn't it far more likely that I just imagined that?  I'm not entirely sane.  It seems more probable I imagined it.  I think that must be the case.

[Rillion]

Err....that post didn't make much sense, Ecolitan. 

[Richard Garner]

Financial gain does not have to be monetary gain, but yes, fraud is a variant of theft. If there has been no property transfer, then there has been no fraud.

So, if I tell you that I will give you 100K dollars to perform service X and you spend 20K of your own money in order to perform that service and then you find out that I never intended to pay you.  There has been no property transfer and thus, no fraud.  Correct?  After all, all I did was say something that is not true in order to get you to do something you wouldn't have otherwise done.

I still provided you that service. There has been a property transfer - from me to you. That is the point, the transfer in fraud is from the victim to the fraudster.

[Richard Garner]

Repercussions?  Sure.  Justification of force for lying about somebody in order to hurt their feelings?  No.  I'm sorry if your ex girlfriend tells all of her friends that you never gave her an orgasm, but that doesn't entitle you to any of her money. 

Really?  You'd think after I got a witness to say they were going to sleep with me before they heard that vicious rumor she'd prefer coming off some money for a prostitute or 2 instead of the only other way I can think of her making proper restitution... sex slave.

The way to make proper restiution in this case is surely just to give you your money back.

[Richard Garner]

I agree that simply lying is not enough.  The statement: "I have a blue car" by itself is not a big deal even if the person saying it does not.  If someone walks into a bar and promises ten thousand dollars to anyone driving a blue car, the statement becomes fraud.  Another lie that I'd call fraud if I were on the jury: "I was just tested last week and I am 100% free of all STDs".

OK, so you agree that simply lying is not fraud. That would mean that you accept that fraud is a particular form of lying that has characteristics that other lies do not have. So what are those characteristics. So far as I can tell, saying "I will give ten thousand dollars to the anyone driving a blue car" when you have no intention to do so is no different from saying "I have a blue car" when you don't. It is just a lie. Could you clear up just what characteristics the one lie has that the other lie doesn't?

Even then, even if it is fraud, it still doesn't mean that it should be punished, since only rights violations should be punished, and promising "I will give ten thousand dollars to anyone who drives a blue car" doesn't violate rights, it deprives nobody of anything they already had a right over.

[Ecolitan]

Err....that post didn't make much sense, Ecolitan. 

What didn't?

How about we go back to the beginning.  We've established Force, Fraud, Theft are against nap.

Fraud  b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick

If that's not what you mean by Fraud.  Speak English

[Ecolitan]

Financial gain does not have to be monetary gain, but yes, fraud is a variant of theft. If there has been no property transfer, then there has been no fraud.

So, if I tell you that I will give you 100K dollars to perform service X and you spend 20K of your own money in order to perform that service and then you find out that I never intended to pay you.  There has been no property transfer and thus, no fraud.  Correct?  After all, all I did was say something that is not true in order to get you to do something you wouldn't have otherwise done.

I still provided you that service. There has been a property transfer - from me to you. That is the point, the transfer in fraud is from the victim to the fraudster.

what property?  services aren't property.

[Ecolitan]

Repercussions?  Sure.  Justification of force for lying about somebody in order to hurt their feelings?  No.  I'm sorry if your ex girlfriend tells all of her friends that you never gave her an orgasm, but that doesn't entitle you to any of her money. 

Really?  You'd think after I got a witness to say they were going to sleep with me before they heard that vicious rumor she'd prefer coming off some money for a prostitute or 2 instead of the only other way I can think of her making proper restitution... sex slave.

The way to make proper restiution in this case is surely just to give you your money back.

Is that a joke?  You've imagined the transfer of property above so I though maybe you'd imagined the transfer of money here.  If not.  Well that's real funny.  I chuckled.

[Richard Garner]

Financial gain does not have to be monetary gain, but yes, fraud is a variant of theft. If there has been no property transfer, then there has been no fraud.

So, if I tell you that I will give you 100K dollars to perform service X and you spend 20K of your own money in order to perform that service and then you find out that I never intended to pay you.  There has been no property transfer and thus, no fraud.  Correct?  After all, all I did was say something that is not true in order to get you to do something you wouldn't have otherwise done.

I still provided you that service. There has been a property transfer - from me to you. That is the point, the transfer in fraud is from the victim to the fraudster.

what property?  services aren't property.

Sure they are. I own my time, I have given it up for you under specific conditions you haven't fulfilled.

[Richard Garner]

Repercussions?  Sure.  Justification of force for lying about somebody in order to hurt their feelings?  No.  I'm sorry if your ex girlfriend tells all of her friends that you never gave her an orgasm, but that doesn't entitle you to any of her money. 

Really?  You'd think after I got a witness to say they were going to sleep with me before they heard that vicious rumor she'd prefer coming off some money for a prostitute or 2 instead of the only other way I can think of her making proper restitution... sex slave.

The way to make proper restiution in this case is surely just to give you your money back.

Is that a joke?  You've imagined the transfer of property above so I though maybe you'd imagined the transfer of money here.  If not.  Well that's real funny.  I chuckled.

I'm not sure I got the scenario.

[Ecolitan]

Even then, even if it is fraud, it still doesn't mean that it should be punished, since only rights violations should be punished, and promising "I will give ten thousand dollars to anyone who drives a blue car" doesn't violate rights, it deprives nobody of anything they already had a right over.

OK... can you even read?  the fraud has not been committed by the guy who promised money for blue car drivers.  The Fraud was committed by the guy who falsely claimed to have a blue car.

[Ecolitan]

Sure they are. I own my time, I have given it up for you under specific conditions you haven't fulfilled.

If services are property than we agree on what fraud is.  Just not on what property is.

[Richard Garner]

Financial gain does not have to be monetary gain, but yes, fraud is a variant of theft. If there has been no property transfer, then there has been no fraud.

So, if I tell you that I will give you 100K dollars to perform service X and you spend 20K of your own money in order to perform that service and then you find out that I never intended to pay you.  There has been no property transfer and thus, no fraud.  Correct?  After all, all I did was say something that is not true in order to get you to do something you wouldn't have otherwise done.

I still provided you that service. There has been a property transfer - from me to you. That is the point, the transfer in fraud is from the victim to the fraudster.

what property?  services aren't property.

Sure they are. I own my time, I have given it up for you under specific conditions you haven't fulfilled.

If services are property than so are feelings and what the fuck are you doing in this conversation anyway.  You agree with me completely on what is fraud, just not what is property.

Sorry, I don't get the question. Firstly, of course services are property. You can sell them, can't you?

Secondly, fraud is a form of theft, taking somebody's property. If a lie doesn't result in taking or harming property, it isn't fraud.

I'm not sure what you mean about what is property.

[Ecolitan]

I'm not sure what you mean about what is property.

To me property is something you can see, touch, taste, feel.  Something made of matter.