Defamation in the stateless society

[Rillion]

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

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  (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud)

Don't be a dick.

[Ecolitan]

right.  same source.  Both equally accurate and applicable.  It doesn't say one or both of these definitions may be accurate nor does it say Force, Theft, and also the narrowest legal definition of Fraud.

Don't be a cunt.

We can both agree I'm sure that stealing a television from someone's living room is theft.  I'm sure neither of us would argue that since it has been established that stealing a television from someone's living room is theft then stealing a vehicle from their garage could not possibly also be theft.

I said speak English.  I meant it.  In English both definitions are fraud, you have been pretending like only one is.  That's true, if you're speaking legalese.  If you're speaking English, it is false.

[Rillion]

right.  same source.  Both equally accurate and applicable.  It doesn't say one or both of these definitions may be accurate nor does it say Force, Theft, and also the narrowest legal definition of Fraud.

If they're both equally accurate and applicable, then they're both in fucking English.  That's why I called you a dick for telling me to speak English.

Fact: there is no force involved with simple lying, when nobody's rights are violated and no property is taken.   You are, therefore, not justified in using force against someone for simply lying, because that would be uninitiated force.   

End of story. 

[Ecolitan]

Fact: there is no force involved with simple lying, when nobody's rights are violated and no property is taken.   You are, therefore, not justified in using force against someone for simply lying, because that would be uninitiated force.   

Have you not read the thread or are you just pretending.  I responded to that argument already. 

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".

[TimeLady Victorious]

If there is a stateless society, wouldn't that mean that there is no organization to enforce laws . . . or at least, any organization that enforces laws would be voluntary, and no one who is not a member of that organization would therefore be obligated to follow its dictates?

[MacFall]

There should be no libel laws. People do not own their reputations: Reputations are what other people think about you, and you don't own other people's thoughts.

This

[Ecolitan]

So, if Bob opens up a restaurant across the street from mine and tells everyone I have a terrible rat infestation, Bob hasn't committed fraud.  In the absence of a free market solution, I'd have to kill Bob to protect my business.  And I might.  I'd be powerful angry.

You might think that but can you really say that:  "Bob did not fraudulently harm my customer base and by doing so fraudulently improve his".

Perhaps you should change NAP to just Force and Theft because you don't really mean the fraud part.

Fraudulently : characterized by, based on, or done by *[an act of deceiving or misrepresenting] : deceitful 
*Fraud

That example even fits definition A, the one Rillion likes:
 characterized by, based on, or done by [intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right]

The restaurant owner who lied about the rats definitely managed to get others to give him money they would have otherwise given to another.  That is parting with something of value and therefore Fraud even by Rillion's definition.  But it was just a simple lie, and no one owns their reputation.

Any English teachers on the forum?  Fuck.... any English speakers on the forum?

Wasn't BJ convicted of Fraud in his youth for some internet based thing he regrets today.  BJ?  Thoughts?

[MacFall]

No, Bob would not have committed fraud. And to resolve the issue, all you'd have to do is invite people to come in and see for themselves. Assuming that it was, in fact, a case of libel or slander, people will know that Bob is a liar, and he won't be trusted anymore. His customers will wonder why, if his business is worth anything, he would have had to tell such lies. And thereafter people will tend to choose your business over Bob's. Problem solved without anybody throwing a temper tantrum and starting a fight.

Or it could go to third party dispute resolution: You appeal the charge to a well-respected restaurant inspecting agency, and after investigating, they issue you a Certificate of Cleanliness and publish the fact that Bob had lied about you. Different means, same results. You have far too narrow a view of how the market would solve such problems. Dispute resolution need not involve the use of force to obtain restitution.

Also, you are using the legal definition of fraud, which is not the sense in which libertarian theorists have used it. Just as the legal definition of "theft" does not include taxation. For a libertarian to consider something a crime, some invasion of property rights must have occurred. And as one does not own one's reputation, telling lies about another person cannot be considered a crime.

[Ecolitan]

No, Bob would not have committed fraud.

 Fraudulantly: characterized by, based on, or done by [intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right]


Fuck.... any english speakers on the forum?

Or it could go to third party dispute resolution

OM Fucking G

the title of the thread say's stateless society.  If you argue there is no libel in a stateless society than you're saying there's no third party dispute resolution to be done.  If there IS dispute resolution to be done, then there must be a legitimate fucking complaint... holy motherfucking shit, you have all lost your damn minds on this issue.

[MacFall]

Fuck.... any english speakers on the forum?

Also, you are using the legal definition of fraud, which is not the sense in which libertarian theorists have used it. Just as the legal definition of "theft" does not include taxation. For a libertarian to consider something a crime, some invasion of property rights must have occurred. And as one does not own one's reputation, telling lies about another person cannot be considered a crime.

Do you deliberately fail to read through people's posts so that you can appear more ignorant? Because it's working great.

[Ecolitan]

I'm using the dictionary definition.  Rillion is using only the legal part of the dictionary definition.

Go to hell asshole.  I read your post.  The part of it you reprinted in red was false.

[MacFall]

No, it wasn't. Read Rothbard, who first came up with the idea of fraud as implicit theft, and everyone else (except for you) who has further theorized on it.

[Ecolitan]

No, it wasn't. Read Rothbard, who first came up with the idea of fraud as implicit theft, and everyone else (except for you) who has further theorized on it.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

You sound like the objectivists who have in the past claimed that Ayn Rand invented libertarianism.  Fraud and libertarianism both existed long before the 20th century.

It's Force, Fraud, and Theft.  Not Force, Theft by Fraud, and Theft.

If Rothbard meant to say something that doesn't follow the definition of fraud, he should have picked a different word.  I'd like to give him more credit than that.


and yes it was false.  at least where you said I was using the legal definition.  No... I wasn't.  I believe Rillion's complaint is that I was NOT using the legal definition.  You can't both be right.

You're right about Fraud as implicit theft.  It is usually, as in the rat scenario.

[MacFall]

You sound like the objectivists who have in the past claimed that Ayn Rand invented libertarianism.

I've never heard any such claim. I think you're just making shit up.

Fraud and libertarianism both existed long before the 20th century.

Libertarianism was a codeword for anarcho-syndicalism until it was revived as a propertarian idea in the 1940s by Leonard Read. Rothbard was the first to define it in terms of non-aggression in For A New Liberty.

If Rothbard meant to say something that doesn't follow the definition of fraud, he should have picked a different word.

The word fraud works just fine. If it is used in the context of libertarian ethical theory it is perfectly clear what it refers to. Or at least, it is to just about everyone but you.

I'd like to give him more credit than that but... he DID start employer tax withholding.

Wow, I guess Rothbard only pretended to be Milton Friedman in order to advocate tax withholding. And then when he later lambasted Friedman for the idea, it was actually him who did it all along - and Friedman taking the credit!!! Who knew?!?!

[Ecolitan]

You sound like the objectivists who have in the past claimed that Ayn Rand invented libertarianism.

I've never heard any such claim. I think you're just making shit up.

Nah, it happened here w/ Brasky when I first got here.  well, it was the Tranny or maybe Gay Libertarian, then Brasky took up the fight and finished it off with an owl when it was clear he had mistaken the argument from the beginnning.  Also, Mike Lorrey on the FSP forum when I first showed up there.  Don't call me a liar dude.  I have no reason to.  More than have no reason to.  Both conversations are the primary reason I can't fucking stand objectivism.  Crazy ugly woman worshippers with delusions of grandeur.  Fucking invented libertarianism 

Fraud and libertarianism both existed long before the 20th century.

Libertarianism was a codeword for anarcho-syndicalism until it was revived in the 1940s by Leonard Read. Rothbard was the first to define it in terms of non-aggression in For A New Liberty.

Perhaps... as the word "libertarian"  but I'm sure we can all agree that Thomas Jefferson was very libertarian, back then they used the word liberal to mean the same thing.  Libertarianism by any other name.......

If Rothbard meant to say something that doesn't follow the definition of fraud, he should have picked a different word.

The word fraud works just fine. If it is used in the context of libertarian ethical theory it is perfectly clear what it refers to. Or at least, it is to just about everyone but you.

Pretty sure the way I read it a very long time ago when I was reading liberty stuff is that Fraud is implicit FORCE because it causes people to do things with their physical bodies they would not have done in the absence of fraud.

I'm not interested in proving it to you, mostly because those books are in boxes or given away, you look it up.  Then you'll know that apparently it's not perfectly clear to you "in the context of libertarian theory".  Probably wasn't Rothbard in my case, would have been a Cato publication.  The Libertarian Reader or Libertarianism: A Primer most likely.

I'd like to give him more credit than that but... he DID start employer tax withholding.

Wow, I guess Rothbard only pretended to be Milton Friedman, and then later lambasted Friedman for tax witholding - while all along it was actually him who did it - and Friedman taking the credit!!! Who knew?!?!

yeah,  I fixed that before you posted this.  I was never one for names and dates. 


What would you do in the Rat situation in stateless society?  If you and the offender both utilized the same DRO?  Would you invite that DRO to do something about it?  Would they?  THAT is "defamation in a stateless society".  It would exist.