Dear Folks: I am contemplating suing the New York Times for libel.He is doing so after NYT incorrectly wrote that he said slavery was "not so bad," and after NYT editors refused to make a correction (SEE: OUTRAGE: If Only Walter Block Was Governor of New Jersey). But would Block be on firm libertarian ground by suing?
This is what he wrote in his very important libertarian book, Defending the Undefendable:
It is easy to be an advocate of free speech when it applies to the rights of those with whom one is in agreement. But the crucial test concerns repugnant speech--statements which we consider vicious and nasty. and which may, in fact, even be vicious and nasty[...]So can Block sue NYT while waving his libertarian credentials and waving his book, which defends libel?
Now, there is nothing more repugnant or vicious than libel. We must, therefore, take particular care to defend the speech rights of libelers.
Of course, he can! I hold that governments and their agents have no rights. In other words, I am generally against the activities of the military. However, if say, the US Marines, suddenly used their force to battle, say, the DEA or prevent ObamaCare operatives from coercing us into ObamaCare, I would cheer on the Marines, probably buy myself a big bucket of popcorn, sit in front of the TV and anxiously await reports from CNN about battlefield activities.
What does this have to do with NYT?
Lew Rockwell has taught us:
Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police State as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals, and makes the executive State the unlimited master of society[...]If fascism is invisible to us, it is truly the silent killer. It fastens a huge, violent, lumbering State on the free market that drains its capital and productivity like a deadly parasite on a host[...]Government under fascism becomes the cartelization device for both workers and the private owners of capital. Competition between workers and between businesses is regarded as wasteful and pointless; the political elites decide that the members of these groups need to get together and cooperate under government supervision to build a mighty nation[..]Under fascism, society as we know it is left intact, though everything is lorded over by a mighty State apparatus.If one contemplates the nature of NYT, in light of Rockwell's analysis, one realizes that NYT is not operating as a private sector entity, but as a propaganda machine for the state. Indeed, there is little doubt they have in the past and continue to have CIA agents that pose as reporters.
Ralph Raico has pointed out:
The Newspaper of Record, “All the news we see fit to print,” continues its honorable tradition of pro-state lies. I recall their D. C. correspondent Judith Miller’s role in promoting the lie of Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. What’s your guess on how much blood she, and the Times, have on their hands for that? But this tradition for our Newspaper of Record goes back to the 1930s. Then its Moscow correspondent, Walter Duranty, did a good comrade’s job denying the very existence of the Stalinist terror famine in the Ukraine and the North Caucasus that led to the death of many millions. The Old Gray State Whore would be a better name for that paper.Under the government manipulated economy that we live in, certain "private" entities must be considered agents of the state. Goldman Sachs comes to mind, but so does NYT. Note well, although NYT has refused to issue a correction about their mischaracterization of Block, they had no problem rushing to make a correction for the statist, Chris Christie. Since NYT is an agent of the state, I consider full force harassment of NYT a noble act. I say it would be heroic for Block to turn the government court system against the government's lead propaganda machine. Go Walter, go!
Walter Blocks legal action against the NYT would have the benefit of costing them money and time, and it also complies with the non aggression corollary, which I recently made up. That corollary says that it is not enough to just not start trouble, you also need to try to resist troublemakers where practical. This one seems to be practical, and can be dropped if that turns out to be the case.
ReplyDeleteAn additional benefit would be the education of Dr. Block on the truly breathtaking corruption in the US legal system.
I wish Mr. Block the best and I do not believe that a libel lawsuit diminishes his Libertarian cred but....................................., Mr. Block should fly his anarcho-capitalist flag and confront the two writers and publicly challenge them to a duel or boxing match...(that's completely legal). The creeps will laugh it off and refuse but Block's honor will be restored and the creeps will have to live with themselves.
ReplyDelete.
I did that with a corrupt police officer once, in front of his friends.
The steroided-up creep couldn't back down THEN, but failed to show on the agreed upon date.
.
wimps.
While I agree with the libertarian analysis that a libel suit is permissible, I can't help wondering if suing is wise. By way of parallel, rabbis and other notable community leaders are not only forbidden from from breaking halakhah (Jewish law) but also from doing anything that is valid but could be misconstrued as unlawful out of fear of setting a bad precedent and opening the entire community up to charges of hypocrisy. In this vein, I wonder aloud if Rebbe Block ought to follow the same path.
ReplyDeleteThe courts are not efficient nor practical uses of one's time and money. Typically the people who benefit the most from lawsuits are lawyers, judges and the courts. The NY times have a long time honored history of lying and misrepresentation via Duranty and Judith miller which are famous examples. Perhaps Block should celebrate his smear? A smear born of advocating liberty.
ReplyDeleteIf they won't have an honest dialogue and they are not interested in truth seeking, f. em!
Second that.
ReplyDeleteWear the badge proudly.
I completely disagree with RW. Dr. Block's proposed suit would be harmful to his reputation and to the entire anarcho capitalism movement because by suing Dr. Block would be violating the NAP.
ReplyDeleteIn Defending the Undefendable, Dr. Block writes: "..., a person's reputation is what other people think of him; it consists of the thoughts which other people have. A man does not own his reputation any more than he owns the thoughts of others - because that is all his reputation consists of. A man's reputation cannot be stolen from him any more than can the thoughts of other people be stolen from him. 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."
Dr. Block is correct. His reputation is not his property because it exists in the minds of others. He has no ownership rights in other people's thoughts. As he argued, he should have no recourse. The NYT has not initiated violence, or the threat of violence, against Dr. Block's body or his property. (I am by no means defending the NYT in how they portrayed Dr. Block. What they did was intellectually dishonest, immoral, and inexcusable.)
By suing, it would be Dr. Block who is initiating violence against the NYT. He could sue for money or for a written correction. If he wins, Dr. Block would be using the threat of violence to force the people at the NYT to surrender their property (cash) or to engage in speech against their will. A suit, whether unsuccessful suit or not, could potentially force innocent people to engage in labor against their will (jury duty) if Dr. Block sought a jury trial.You, Mr. Wenzel agreed. RW, "you are correct that Walter has no standing from a principled NAP position to sue NYT. I am not sure why Walter even brought it up as an option."
Yet now you are enthusiastically cheering for him to violate the very foundation of anarcho capitalism. Have you changed your mind about Dr. Block violating the NYT? No. Instead you come up with an incredibly flimsy argument that amounts to nothing more that "we (anarcho capitalists) should break the ethical foundation of our world view when it is convenient and one of our greatest intellectual opponents could be damaged because they defend seemingly any and every government action." Simply labeling someone an "agent" of the state does not provide the moral authority to engage in the initiation of violence.
There is no denying that the NYT is the main lapdog of government. I oppose everything that the NYT represents.They consistently defend and demand government action and all government action requires violence to be enforced. How does the NYT handle this? They ignore it.
You are encouraging Dr. Block to violate the NAP because you wish to ignore it or believe you have found a loophole; fascism and the NYT as an agent of the state. You quote Mr. Rockwell noting how fascism the system where government forms a cartel in the private sector (presumably for the benefits of "insiders"). Has the government formed a cartel in the news industry? Has the NYT used the government prohibit anyone from trying to defend Dr. Block? No. You have written several posts explaining the true context of Dr. Block's writings. Dr. Block has written his own defense on LRC. It does not appear that the NYT has used the government to restrict the speech of anyone.
Mr. Rockwell's quote discusses how fascism denies "fundamental rights and liberties to individuals." How has the NYT denied anyone their fundamental rights? Surely you do not believe that Dr. Block somehow has a fundamental right in his reputation.
How are we supposed to win this intellectual battle when we don't even play by our own rules? You are not at all convincing in your reasoning here Mr. Wenzel.
As hard as it is to say, I agree with Anonymous at 8:57. While I loathe the NYT and everything that they stand for, I think Prof. Block should not sue them for libel. What the Times did was inexcusable and morally repugnant (what else is new?), but the lawsuit would do more harm than good to the growing anarcho-capitalist wing of libertarianism. Dr. Block, as far as I know, did not qualify his stance about libel in his book (i.e. it's not a crime, unless one works for the State). While they may be the mouthpiece of the government, the people at the Times are still human beings and the NAP still applies to them. While they did initiate this smear against the Mises Institute and Prof. Block, that does not mean that Block should go back on his position that libel is not a real crime.
DeleteWhile I completely understand Dr. Block's anger and anyone who supports him in this lawsuit, I think the movement as a whole would be better off if we all see it as a badge of honor and a signal that the Establishment is starting to notice our movement; and they are worried. People are gradually waking up and the Powers That Be won't be around much longer - the system they've put in place can't last forever. Let the fools think they've hurt us, while we keep on telling the truth. As Lew Rockwell has repeatedly said, the Truth is on our side and the Truth will prevail in the end.
Have you changed your mind about Dr. Block violating the NYT?
DeleteI meant the NAP.
I've a question, do you think that the NYT's has engaged in fraud (on any level, with any party)?
DeleteI would appreciate it if you could contain your answer solely to this question, making no suppositions.
Fraud? No, not as I understand it.
DeleteFraud is an intentional misrepresentation or intentional omission of a material fact with intent to make the victim rely on the misrepresentation/omission and the victim actually does so.
I don't think it applies in this context. Fraud typically involves a contract or a sale of a good/service.
What about this definition:
Delete"wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain."
Seem like a reasonable definition to you?
Regardless of your answer to my definition question, I decided to take your existing framework to make a point:
Delete"Fraud is an intentional misrepresentation or intentional omission of a material fact with intent to make the victim rely on the misrepresentation/omission and the victim actually does so."
Let's for a moment focus on what may be a implicit agreement between the NYT's and its subscribers:
The NYT's embraced itself as the "Newspaper of record", the implication being that it would objective record events as a sort of reliable document of such.
Argument #1: The NYT"s has committed fraud against its subscriber base, obviously quite purposely with a(as you put it) "intentional omission of material fact".
How might their potential victims respond to this? Disregarding Block? Also, not actually getting what they are supposedly paying for, objective record. Does Block have legal standing in that? Probably not.
(Arg #2)
HOWEVER, if Block now finds himself limited within academic communities(many liberal/left leaning) in being able to garner paid speaking engagements, debates, his writing admitted to certain publications, etc.- has he not been harmed by the NYT's clear fraud?(see my quoted definition as well) Do those with left leaning agenda not benefit from fraudulently claiming a leading libertarian scholar is in support of involuntary slavery? I see all the conditions for fraud being fulfilled IMHO.
Is it not a clear violation of the NAP? Does any of the above have anything to do with whether he "owns" his reputation or not? (my argument is "no" obviously)
I believe this is where Block has legal standing, but further, the NYT in that context has clearly violated the NAP from my perspective.
I am eager to read your argument counter if you are not convinced.
I do not particularly like your new definition. I'm a lawyer and for better or worse I would prefer to stick to the definition I gave as it most accurately reflects the legal definition.
Delete1. Fraud against the subscriber?
Probably not. First, this was offered on a free page and not behind a subscription wall. Second, even if it was behind a subscription wall there isnt enough for fraud. For there to be fraud, the misrepresentation needs to be about a material fact. If you read some fraud cases the misrepresentation needs to be about a basic or fundamental fact of a contract / sale... whatever. The NYT would have needed to sell subscriptions based on a claim of something like "buy our product and we will show you how Walter Block (a well known Ancap) is racist/ a supporter of slaver / whatever." This didnt happen. They didnt sell subscriptions based on a promise to reveal Block as a racist. Proving fraud is very difficult. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would admit that the NYT took Dr. Block out of context, but the truth is they did use his quotes. Don't have much faith in the court system, it could easily be found to not be fraud.
Either way, no I dont see their subscribers as having a case for fraud.
2.
Has Dr. Block been harmed in your scenario? Yes.
What caused the harm? I would say its libel (even when considering either definition).
But the main point here is that Dr. Block has no property right to money that could be potentially made in future speaking engagements (unless he is under a contract to speak somewhere and that contract is breached). Lets say in 2013 Dr. Block spoke at 10 paid events and made $10,000 doing so. Lets pretend this is close to what he averaged the last 10 years.
Now lets pretend that as a result of the NYT, Dr. Block only speaks at 5 paid events for $5,000. (no contracts were broken). He does not have any sort of property right to an extra $5,000 simply because that is what he earned in the passed. Yes he has been hurt, but he has no property right to speaking fees (unless he is under a contract).
Were you aware of Block's stance on libel before this episode? If so, did you bring up your argument that what Block considers libel is actually fraud, and therefore a violation of NAP?
DeleteHow is your Arg#2 any different from the case of a home's property value? For example, if I own my house but I may not like the way my neighbor decorates his yard. So, I use the argument that his redneck decorating style is "bringing down property values" and get the city to pass a code restricting certain lawn ornaments or requiring that people mow their lawns. I've just used violence to supposedly protect my property right. This is the foundation for A LOT of government intervention. Now if their were voluntary neighborhood covenants or clauses in deeds about how property is to be maintained then I would have a rightful case against my neighbor--and of course these features would exist in a situation without the state.
DeleteNick, I think you nailed it.
DeleteSuing them on these grounds is perfectly libertarian in my book!
He does not have any sort of property right to an extra $5,000 simply because that is what he earned in the passed.
Delete* Past. Yikes haha. No more typing for me so late at night.
Rick Fitz,
DeleteCan you please explain how Dr. Block has property rights in potential speaking events that he is not under contract for?
"Were you aware of Block's stance on libel before this episode? If so, did you bring up your argument that what Block considers libel is actually fraud, and therefore a violation of NAP?"
DeleteYes, but honestly I never really invested too much intellectual capital into it.
I'm now thinking about it more, as I see the fraud(IMO) committed by the NYT as a cause of harm against Dr. Block.
I have a hard time accepting the view others have that:
#1 There is no fraud(it seems clear to me there is).
#2 There is no harm by said fraud to Dr. Block
I understand that is seems clear to others that the two points above are not "legitimate" or "reality".
I'm not really sure yet how to proceed from an argumentation perspective(not arguing in a contentious way) on how to deal with the difference in reality perception at this point, so I'm going to read everything everyone here posts and see if I change my mind.
"Can you please explain how Dr. Block has property rights in potential speaking events that he is not under contract for?"
DeleteMaybe this is the crux of the issue surrounding the debate of "ownership" of your reputation. You bring up a good point.
If I have built my business, a part of which is based on reputation and someone falsely advertises that I provide an inferior product, can we all see that there's a potential for harm there?
We might not be able to easily quantify the harm, but does it not seem apparent that a clear violation of the NAP has occurred? (that is assuming there is fraud that is...like the NYT's fraudulently reporting that Block is pro voluntary slavery)
The businessman side of me knows how important reputation is, is a matter of fact in accounting there an attempt to quantify it known as "goodwill"...so I think it's germane as we can begin to put a dollar estimate in terms of harm on it.(not easy to do though)
"How is your Arg#2 any different from the case of a home's property value? For example, if I own my house but I may not like the way my neighbor decorates his yard. So, I use the argument that his redneck decorating style is "bringing down property values" and get the city to pass a code restricting certain lawn ornaments or requiring that people mow their lawns."
DeleteSetting aside for a moment the fact that people run to an immoral organization(gov't) to settle their problems with one another as the paradigm stands today, let me take your excellent point and ask a question/make another:
Can we all acknowledge that if your neighbor paints his house fluorescent bright green and never mows his lawn that you might not be able to sell your house for as much?
If you bought your house before he started doing this, would his actions have harmed you financially?
To me, the answer is a simple "yes". He has also by doing such violated the NAP. (I know many of you will not like my opinion-but regardless it's just that.)
So leaving gov't out of the equation, what is the solution? Maybe it's starts with conversation between neighbors, maybe it goes to arbitration, etc.
Like IP, we should try to isolate the current paradigm...which itself is a basic violation of the NAP and try to figure out how we can be consistent adherents without it.
Nick,
DeleteIt seems to me that because you can point to harm that has occurred, you feel there is automatically a violation of the NAP. I do not that think is the correct position (please correct me if I am mis stating your view)
Has Dr. Blocks reputation been harmed? Yes (I never stated there was no harm, I did not intend to give that impression either). Does Dr. Block own his reputation? No.
There has been no aggression against any property belonging to Dr. Block.
It is unfortunate that this happened. Dr. Block could very well be worse off because of the NYT. But there has been no aggression against Dr. Block's property, that is the key. The world is not perfect, even in an Ancap one. There can still be injustice. This was unfortunate and I feel sorry for Dr. Block, but I cannot let my fondness for Dr. Block and my emotions win out over reasoning and the fundamentals of the NAP. Sometimes we need to accept bad results that are entirely possible within the NAP.
Regarding the example of your neighbor not mowing his lawn....
1. You have no property rights to his home/lawn.
2. By not mowing his lawn or painting his house a funny color he has not aggressed against your property.
3. The value of your house is determined in the minds of potential buyers. You have no property rights in the subjective value placed on your home in the minds of other people.
Have you suffered? Yes. However, there is no violation of the NAP.
Not willing to put up a fight on this one RW? Keep updating your blog frantically to push this post off the front page so that your sloppy argument can go down the memory hole.
DeleteYou are an idiot. 27 posts are scheduled to stay on the front page, every day. That is roughly two days worth. Which means this post will stay on the front page not only today, but most, if not all, of tomorrow. Further, the same number of posts have gone up today as any day.
DeleteAnd finally, I stick by my analysis and making this comment will highlight this post AGAIN in the recent comments section at the TOP of the front page.
Anon @ 5:01
Delete"It seems to me that because you can point to harm that has occurred, you feel there is automatically a violation of the NAP. I do not that think is the correct position (please correct me if I am mis stating your view)"
First, let me thank you for a well reasoned response.
I think the blame in confusion on my position is two fold and my fault, not only have I not thought through everything so I'm discussing this 'on the fly', but more importantly the example of the neighbor does not well illustrate my concern/position.
I will start by clarifying that I intend to make no claims against someone that has not violated the NAP.
The problem as I see it is whether "harm" that has been caused is classified as "incidental" or "intentional".
This is why I mention "fraud" in my original question.
Does anyone here think the NYT's DIDN'T intend to harm Dr. Block?
This is an important question, especially in the context of determining whether the NAP has been violated. Would you agree?
My contention is simply that clear ownership of something is not required for a violation of the NAP, I see harm as the mitigating factor-UNDER THE ASSUMPTION IT IS INTENTIONAL. Would you agree with this?
Again, I thank you for your response, I have no argument with the context under which you argued for a neighbors right to have his house as he pleases even if there is incidental harm to his neighbors house value as a result.
That being said, if the his intent is to harm(for example, making his neighbors house worth less purposely, knowing he was trying to sell/move)...is there not room for a NAP violation consideration?
I think that the NAP is not as clear as we would all like in a "imperfect world" as you stated.
Ahh there is the RW we know and love, the hostile name caller. I am an idiot! "But STEF-AWNNNN!"
DeleteYou stick by your analysis? Really? Way to really handle these issues.
Has the government formed a cartel in the news industry? Has the NYT used the government prohibit anyone from trying to defend Dr. Block? No. You have written several posts explaining the true context of Dr. Block's writings. Dr. Block has written his own defense on LRC. It does not appear that the NYT has used the government to restrict the speech of anyone.
Mr. Rockwell's quote discusses how fascism denies "fundamental rights and liberties to individuals." How has the NYT denied anyone their fundamental rights? Surely you do not believe that Dr. Block somehow has a fundamental right in his reputation.
Ill repeat my summary of your argument again:
"you come up with an incredibly flimsy argument that amounts to nothing more that "we (anarcho capitalists) should break the ethical foundation of our world view when it is convenient and one of our greatest intellectual opponents could be damaged because they defend seemingly any and every government action." Simply labeling someone an "agent" of the state does not provide the moral authority to engage in the initiation of violence."
Sloppy Sloppy Sloppy
Nice manners, quick quote Rothbard calling his opponents an idiot. Ready... go!
DeleteNick,
DeleteI guess we simply have a different understanding and application of the NAP. I only apply it to one's body or their property.
I do think that the NYT intentionally tried to harm Dr. Block in one form or another. But even their intentional harm does not violate the NAP in my opinion for reasons stated above (Dr. Block's body or property was not harmed).
Its immoral to intentionally try to harm someone's reputation but I do not change my application of the NAP depending on unintentional v intentional harm. It seems you want the NAP to cover someone whose property has not been aggressed upon but is the target of intentional libel that results in a damaged reputation (which is not the target's property).
I am certainly more sympathetic towards the victim who was harmed by someone that had the intention to cause harm more so than a victim of "accidental"/negligent libel. I have more disgust for the perpetrator of "intentional" libel than negligent libel. But in either case I do not see either perpetrator as violating the NAP.
Go Dr. Block Go INDEED!
ReplyDeleteYou can argue that suing the NYT isn't unlibertarian, but any thinking person knows that the government's byzantine legal system will chew you up and spit you out, with only the lawyers winning. Even if he manages to strike back at the NYT (with any legal wins far off in the future), he'll be hurting himself more (financially, mentally, etc.) and perhaps confusing other libertarians.
ReplyDeleteThe battle against the state takes place outside of the state, not within the framework it controls.
I'm rather surprised that Block is taking this so personally, though this sort of 'scandal' must have repercussions for someone like him who's in academia. Anon@8:57 has it right when he quotes Block himself about the nature of reputation. Block should strike back with his pen, and as others have noted, wear the stupid attack by the moronic NYT writer with pride.
In my eyes, the reputation of the famed anarchist author of "Defending the Undefendable" will suffer, when he can't follow his own advice.
Dr. Block cannot sue on firm libertarian grounds for these two reasons:
ReplyDelete1. Libel is not a violation of the NAP.
2. A lawsuit pursued in government courts is a per se violation of the NAP.
The question is, did the NYT attack on Block constitute a violation of the NAP? The intent was to insinuate a lie, a falsehood, knowingly by the email response, in order to 1) sell their product, and 2) reduce the ability of Block to sell his product.
DeleteIn short, the plan all along was to lie, make money, and cost Block money. That's an attack, Block is the victim, damages are realized, and therefore the NAP is violated.
Sue them.
How is lying a violation of the NAP?
DeleteHow is making money a violation of the NAP?
How is lying to make money a violation of the NAP?
What proof do you have that the plan was to cost Dr. Block money?
Please explain how Dr. Block has a property interest in the potential money that could be made at future speaking engagements that he is not currently under contract for.
"In short, the plan all along was to lie, make money, and cost Block money. That's an attack, Block is the victim, damages are realized, and therefore the NAP is violated."
DeleteThat's exactly how I see and it also fits the definition of fraud(although from a strictly "legal" stand point as the law is currently framed, possibly not).
I think it's somewhat self evident, though to others, like anon @11:22am, obviously not.
"What proof do you have that the plan was to cost Dr. Block money?"
Let's look at thing from the perspective of winning an ideological battle:
If the Left prevails in distorting libertarianism, what is the "cost" to the losers and the winners? It seems evident to me there is much to be losses or gained on this battle...without making a proof unreasonably long in pages and trying to retain brevity...can we get everyone to agree that there is much to be won/lost in this battle?
The question being pursued here is the libertarian position on libel lawsuits. Block himself discusses this in Defending the Undefendable, which RW highlights in his initial post. Block correctly concludes that libel is not a violation of NAP is because no property is violated.
DeleteYour conclusion that "the plan all along was to lie, make money, and cost Block money. That's an attack, Block is the victim, damages are realized, and therefore the NAP is violated" is incorrect. No one owns their reputation- it is a concept which resides within other people's minds, and is fully owned by the thinker. This is like whether or not someone finds you attractive. Perhaps next you will advocate a lawsuit of Calvin Klein for perpetuating a stereotype of what a "hot guy" is supposed to look like. I, for one, feel that I have been cost many dates based on that! (Also, it is getting cold standing here only in my underwear- CK had me believing this would work...) I am surely being negated on earnings of some type for not being considered "hot" based on this myth which CK perpetuates! Do I stand on good libertarian ground if I sue Calvin Klein?
Furthermore, pursuing a libel claim in a government court is a per se violation of NAP. I was hoping someone would advocate an arbitration or something voluntary, but no one has done so. Block could have drawn up a contract to only speak with the paper if they included his comments in full, but having not done so, his options of recourse which are consistent with the NAP are severely limited.
As an aside:
To claim that the NYT "cost Block money" is an unprovable assertion, which you cannot possibly settle in a court anyway! What amount of money did block lose? $5,000 per speaking engagement? Perhaps it could be argued that Block's peculiar stance on slavery, if included in full, would have created a windfall of speaking engagements at a much higher rate of pay then before, because readers would have been in awe of his brilliant observation, and would be willing to pay large sums to hear his lectures. It is clear that there is no means to quantify future earnings based on an assertion that reputation is property. The fact that damages cannot be quantified should be a major clue that reputation is not property.
Also,
Lew Rockwell's dismissal of the NYT reporter as "part of the regieme" and refusal to provide commentary for the NYT to slice and dice is looking better by the day. I wish Peter Schiff and Block would have followed the same tactic, or at least toned it down a bit, but that's not who they are- and that's why we love them!
" I was hoping someone would advocate an arbitration or something voluntary, but no one has done so. Block could have drawn up a contract to only speak with the paper if they included his comments in full, but having not done so, his options of recourse which are consistent with the NAP are severely limited."
DeleteI really like part of your comment Rick. You are right on here.
The only thing I would like to put forward in response though to the rest of your comment is that we are stuck in a paradigm right now where arbitration/ADR doesn't seem like a viable solution with government monopoly on disputes via courts.
I had a business situation once with an ADR clause written into a contract....and I couldn't even get arbitration enforced...in fact the legal system itself was a major barrier to such.
"The only thing I would like to put forward in response though to the rest of your comment is that we are stuck in a paradigm right now where arbitration/ADR doesn't seem like a viable solution with government monopoly on disputes via courts."
DeleteNo disagreement here! The state run court system is deeply flawed, and is inherently a tool of violence. With that in mind, is pursuing violence via a libel lawsuit in state courts a viable solution to dispute resolution from a libertarian perspective? It cannot be, as stated earlier:
"1. Libel is not a violation of the NAP.
2. A lawsuit pursued in government courts is a per se violation of the NAP."
Because Block has previously written- and still holds- that libel is not a violation of the NAP, to sue the NYT for libel would be unthinkable. (Perhaps his recent philosophizing about doing so could be called "Thinking the Unthinkable"!) This is possibly why he decided not to pursue this course of action. I wish Block would write about his decision making process; it would be very insightful, I am sure!
I am still interested in your contention that one's reputation is private property. Perhaps you would elaborate a bit on this. I contend, with Block, that because your reputation is a concept within another persons mind (much like your attractiveness) it cannot be construed to be your property. Thus, one cannot have a viable claim to their own reputation via property rights with the NAP in mind. Thus, it is impossible to sue for libel whilst remaining on firm libertarian grounds.
"I am still interested in your contention that one's reputation is private property."
DeleteI'm not quite sure I have decided that either way yet.
I am pro-IP(not in the gov't monopoly sense), so there is potentially some intellectual cross over.
So far, in my thinking just on this topic alone what I know is:
1. There was intent to harm via fraud by the NYT's on Dr. Block
I see this as a clear violation of the NAP(while some here don't, claiming the need for a "property" violation as a condition). I'm not sure how to rectify that logically yet.
2. Because of my business background, and my specific basic knowledge of accounting I referred to the issue of "goodwill" in business valuation/calculation.
Some claim that "reputation" can't be owned, and while I haven't definitively decided whether I agree yet or not(but I am leaning towards disagreeing with all the heavy hitters, including Block, whom I respect), all I can tell you is my thought process goes to this personal experience of mine on the importance of building a businesses reputation and that another discipline(accounting) recognizes that it has value...which SUGGESTS to me that we should consider it as property.(again, I'm still thinking about it all)
So, if one considers reputation property(having nothing to do with another's perception of said reputation), it would make logical sense to me that if someone purposely damages said reputation via fraud that they should be held responsible(whether it's correcting the fraud or a financial award is a different topic).
Still yet, I don't think we have to clearly define "ownership" or even "property" if someone has been intentionally harmed by another to say the NAP has been violated- allowing for a protection response for example.
I would like you to consider Rothbard here, specifically this passage at the beginning of Chapter 2 in "For a New Liberty" (page 27):
Delete"The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the 'nonaggression axiom.' 'Aggression' is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else."
Here Rothbard clearly defines what the NAP is. This central tenant of libertarianism does not refer to harm in a vague sense. Rather, it is in a specific sense- the threat of violence against property. Thus, your contention that you "don't think we have to clearly define 'ownership' or even 'property' if someone has been intentionally harmed by another to say the NAP has been violated" is fundamentally incorrect.
Perhaps you can show how your concept of NAP squares with Rothbard's via the ownership of reputation?
The "importance" of reputation, as well as the intentional harming of a reputation is irrelevant with regards to the NAP if reputation is not property!
"Perhaps you can show how your concept of NAP squares with Rothbard's via the ownership of reputation?"
DeleteIf we are to stick with Rothbard's definition of the NAP, I think you are correct.
You have given me more to think about, if I'm to stay logically consistent it is starting to look like I have to consider reputation as property...which honestly does fit with my IP views.
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter greatly.
Best Regards.
Nick Badalamenti February 6, 2014 at 1:22 PM
DeleteNow is always a good time to re-evaluate "P" in IP.
Well, on that topic I've done a lot of thinking and I'm comfortable with my viewpoint on IP. I'm in the Wenzel camp on that one even though there's a large contingent of prominent libertarians against the notion.
DeleteNick,
DeleteI appreciate you open-mindedness and candor regarding this discussion!
Now:
"...if I'm to stay logically consistent it is starting to look like I have to consider reputation as property..."
Perhaps you could give a brief overview of how you consider reputation (a construct within the mind of another person) property. Furthermore, who owns it? Is it the person who the reputation pertains to, or is it the person who holds the construct within their mind? Someone else, perhaps? I am not being flippant here; I am genuinely curious.
"Perhaps you could give a brief overview of how you consider reputation (a construct within the mind of another person) property."
DeleteIt may help you to go back to the debate on IP(search EPJ) and see how I came about on the view that IP is property if you want a more in depth explanation, but in brief I subscribe to Bastiat's definition of property-in which he argues/acknowledges that IP is something that is created via the work within one's mind and as such is property.
I further bolster this definition in my own thinking by referring to whether an idea(which could be reputation?) has value. (also referring to the "goodwill" calculation in accounting)
The anti-IP crowd suggests that scarcity has to be a factor with "rivalry or non" also being a factor. I consider Bastiat's definition of property as relevant because of the work involved in creating a unique idea and if someone steals that idea(by breaking a contract for example) I see clear harm and seeing the idea as property(which obviously many don't) it would fulfill Rothbard's definition of violating the NAP.
The notion of whether someone's perception of reputation to me is separate from whether I can work on, improve(or reduce) my reputation(or a reputation I own, via a business for example). Again, all supported by Bastiat's definition of property to the degree I've thought about it so far.
We discuss the NAP because it is an important part of resolving conflict. If someone doesn't think that an idea I have is "property", and deliberately infringes on a contract by taking my idea from someone I've contracted with what is my remedy? Is there conflict?(yes in my mind) Does the NAP fail to protect one from harm or resolve conflict if someone claims that what I think is property is not? Who is right? Again, what is the role of intent in all of this?(all genuine questions on my part that I'm still thinking through)
Anti-IPers would suggest there is none as far as the third party goes(I disagree obviously).
Where RW's thoughts come in importantly is the discussion surrounding "What is property?" in that he talks about "designed rights"...which makes complete sense to me because we all sit around and really toil over what "property" is at times.
There are some that claim rights are "God given"(from their perspective), but agnostics & atheists might feel otherwise, right? Can they still get along? Surely. Do they differ on what rights are? It would seem so in some respects.
Anyway, that's a quick summary. I've hashed through IP quite thoroughly, I suppose we can carry it further...but there's sticking points as to the basic definition of "property" that I'm not sure can be resolved, just like there's basic disagreements on where "rights" come from within the libertarian community itself.
Obviously I have huge respect for Rothbard, Hoppe, Block, etc. But I won't let that respect deter me from considering that:
#1 Can/Should Rothbard's definition of NAP violation be improved? (I have no clear opinion yet, but I still think about "intent" quite a bit, ie. who wants to be a libertarian punching bag?)
#2 If I've invested my hard work into a unique idea (or reputation) and someone comes along and decides to steal my idea via contract violation(I'm all for "independent discovery" as outlined by Rothbard) or fraudulently tries to ruin my reputation(which I've been via my work) and justifies it by saying "Yea, well that stuff isn't property so I haven't harmed you.", you can be sure I don't give a damn what they consider as "property" and will seek remedy. (that last statement was a bit strong, but I'm trying to make a point)
edit: "which I've BUILT via my work"
DeleteNick,
DeleteThanks for your response!
I would like to leave your discussion of IP aside (which seems to be most of your response, unfortunately), as I think these are two separate issues. But I do understand your position there, and I can see how being pro-IP would lead you to conceptualize reputation as property.
That said, I still don't think you have tackled my question:
"Perhaps you could give a brief overview of how you consider reputation (a construct within the mind of another person) property. Furthermore, who owns it? Is it the person who the reputation pertains to, or is it the person who holds the construct within their mind?"
You approach answering it here:
"The notion of whether someone's perception of reputation to me is separate from whether I can work on, improve(or reduce) my reputation(or a reputation I own, via a business for example)."
"Your" reputation IS a perception- a construct within the mind of another person. Thus, you cannot "own" it "via a business". I understand that you mean presenting yourself in the best possible light to influence that perception, but how you are the owner of something which resides in the mind of another person?!
The notion that a concept within the mind of someone else is your property is intellectual tyranny. Even worse- how could someone "unthink" the perception which you are claiming as your property? A person's mind is within their body- the embodiment (pardon the pun) of their property. Thus, idea that a construct within the mind of someone can be owned by another person cannot be reconciled!
I also take issue with your mixing of the two concepts harm and aggression.
Harm is a different thing than aggression, which Rothbard clarifies as "physical violence" when defining the NAP. I can call you a "poo poo head" which would (for the sake of argument) hurt your feelings. Thus, I have harmed you! However, I have not violated the NAP, as I have not initiated " the use or threat of physical violence against" your person or property. Check out this post on LRC about misconstruing harm and aggression:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-new-aggression-emotional-pain/
I can also decide to not do business with you because I don't like the color of shirt you are wearing today. (Strange set of values, right?) Then I can tell all of my friends, "Hey, did you see the shirt Nick was wearing today? I would never do business with him!" Thus, I have harmed you without violating the NAP. I grant to you that I'm not exactly the NYT, but I think you get my point!
I am interested to see your response!
"Your" reputation IS a perception- a construct within the mind of another person. "
DeleteIt is NOT just a construct in the mind of another person, it is a concept within my own as well.
"I would like to leave your discussion of IP aside (which seems to be most of your response, unfortunately), as I think these are two separate issues."
I think I've failed to properly illustrate how they are connected, consider the following:
"There are people in whose eyes property appears only in the form of a plot of land or
a sack of coins. Provided only that the land's sacrosanct boundaries are not moved and
that pockets are not literally picked, they are quite content. But is there not also
property in men's labor, in their faculties, in their ideas—in a word, is there not
property in services?"-Bastiat (Economic Harmonies)
There is no debate over the issue of other people owning their thoughts, ideas, etc. (from my perspective), although your acknowledgement of such is yet another validation of a form of IP. (smiling, but I digress)
The debate is whether MY idea surrounding reputation is property or not so I can protect myself if someone violates the NAP, correct?
My contention is that it is because of my labor input, ideas in building it(regardless of others perceptions) and because it has "value"(if done properly) that it fulfills Rothbard's criteria for a NAP violation on the basis that it IS my property(Bastiat).
You cite "physical violence", but Rothbard also says "threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else."
That is not exactly physical violence from my perspective. Ipso Facto. (speaking strictly on defense of a threat)
Anyway, this is relevant because while someone may the have right to decide that I am not fit to do business with and I have no right to force myself upon them, if they threaten or engage in a campaign to harm my reputation(that I see as property) to others I see that as well within my rights to defend on the basis of the NAP and my belief in my reputation as being property; the violence would be actualized in loss of revenue(property damage), but am I allowed to stop it before it has actually happened? (I think so)
Can I control others thoughts that have not violated the NAP and should I be able to? No. (and further, I can't control the thoughts of the NAP violator-but I should be able to seek restitution and/or defend myself)
Can or should I be able to defend myself from someone damaging my property, if it's through fraudulent speech or writing(costing me revenue for example)?
I believe I should-the distinction being fraud. I agree with you that calling me a "poo poo head" while harming me, does not physically damage me and doesn't qualify as a NAP violation.(maybe some might claim so, but good luck with that in an ADR setting).
Now that being said, what is the appropriate response? What would ADR look like under such a circumstance? Would it start with "fact finding", discovery, etc.?
Rothbard rightfully establishes property as the focal point of the NAP. So what is restitution? Is it simply a "cease and desist" if the NAP violator is simply spreading lies? Is the damage repairable?(like a retraction, ahem-NYT's) Who knows.
I don't see anything here on the extreme outer bounds of what a private arbitration setting would consider.
I appreciate this discussion. I see the crux of it surrounding the definition of what "property" is....which is usually unresolvable...but I am open and hope you are.
"I appreciate this discussion...I am open and hope you are."
DeleteAbsolutely! It's good to be a libertarian!
Unfortunately, I will be working all day today....I hope to unpack a response tonight. I am really enjoying this discussion, Nick! I only wish we could have our discussion in person for the sake of efficiency and clarity...oh well!
No worries, I have similar constraints(4 young kids and a business). You can e-mail me directly if you'd like, "toolex(my first name)@gmail" so we don't bore everyone else.
DeleteNick,
DeleteFirst and foremost, thanks for the interesting discussion! While you suggested we continue via email to prevent the boredom of others, I think debates such as these serve as an example of how we libertarians can carefully chisel away with due respect to each other in the cause of crafting a solid worldview. An endless number of outrages by the State can be highlighted- and folks can easily dissect them- but, the tough subjects (i.e. "What is property?") deserve our attention, as well! Indeed, the question of property is the central question to the libertarian who applies the NAP as the looking glass to resolve the mountain of injustices he sees in the world.
Before considering "ownership", I would like to first and foremost offer a definition of the word "reputation":
Reputation is defined as an opinion or belief that is generally held about something or someone. A thing such as "reputation" is not owned by the subject of the opinion1, just as it is not collectively owned by the "public" or the "masses" to whom these definitions are referring. Indeed, each and every individual has a particular and unique opinion of the character or nature of a subject, and the collection of these individually owned opinions results in a reputation. Crucially (with regards to the NAP), each person owns their opinion, as it resides in their own mind.
Moving on, ownership is defined by the ability to dispense something.2 Because the subject of the opinion resides outside the confines of the person who holds such an opinion, the subject cannot dispense this idea on a whim, and thus cannot claim ownership of the opinion. What the subject is trying to do is influence the nature of the opinion, but the subject can never actually own it. As such, the subject cannot find justice via the NAP when they feel the opinion others hold has been tarnished, as the subject does not have ownership of the opinion.
Note well, Bastiat does not offer concepts such as reputation (opinion of character) and appearance (opinion of beauty) as examples in his definition of property. Instead, all of the concepts he refers to are dispensable by the individual who possesses them. This crucial distinction must be considered when formulating opinions of just resolution of conflict via the NAP.
Notes:
1. The use of the word "reputation" in common speech obfuscates the meaning as to indicate ownership of reputation to the subject of the opinion, rather than the individual who judges the subject. This can be seen in phrases like "built his reputation" and "tarnished their reputation", etc.
2. Mises offers this definition in his book Socialism:
"Ownership is always where the power to dispose resides." (Page 276)
Further, Mises points out that this power cannot be limited, or divided:
"Ownership in the natural sense cannot be limited; wherever one speaks of limitation, one means either a curtailment of a too-widely drawn juristic definition or recognition of the fact that ownership in the natural sense belongs concretely to someone other than the person whom the law recognizes as owner." (Page 275)
"...the power to dispose which belongs to him...which alone we call ownership, is indivisable and illimitable." (Page 275)
Rick,
DeleteThank you for your response, we should possibly consider moving this discussion to Block's response/explanation for his consideration on suing the NYT's, as my response there(before this one) is in accordance with my response to you know.
Regardless of the duplication, I will do so here(despite my concern that we may already be at an impasse):
"Crucially (with regards to the NAP), each person owns their opinion, as it resides in their own mind."
I would like to make clear that I do not advocate in any of my propositions that I claim ownership in others thoughts nor do advocate any philosophy that would do so. If you are implicating that, I disagree.
"Moving on, ownership is defined by the ability to dispense something."
It is with this I disagree. You have stated it as fact, you have cited a scholar representing it and I will continue to explore the logic but I do not yet accept it.
As I noted in the EPJ comment section on Block's explanation, I see the logic in and accept the three scholars(Locke, Bastiat, Spooner) that have formed a great deal of their basis of property rights on the labor theory of property(but not solely). For example, Bastiat also writes about 'property' having to have market value as well.
"Note well, Bastiat does not offer concepts such as reputation (opinion of character) and appearance (opinion of beauty) as examples in his definition of property. Instead, all of the concepts he refers to are dispensable by the individual who possesses them."
My response is that his omission is not a "proof", I would say in fits with your/Mises's personal view/logic on property being "dispensable" as a requirement for it being "property", but again is not a proof. Let me say this though about this notion that you can't "give away" reputation:
It would appear to me that you can "dispense with" your reputation, using your own labor(smile). I can't control what others may think about me, but if I decide to dispose of my reputation I can certainly put labor into doing so-and be successful...I can cheat on my wife in public, renege on business arrangements, etc.
"The use of the word "reputation" in common speech obfuscates the meaning as to indicate ownership of reputation to the subject of the opinion, rather than the individual who judges the subject. This can be seen in phrases like "built his reputation" and "tarnished their reputation", etc."
See, I would have to disagree with you there. I think the use of the word is common speech reflects the reality that "reputation" is something I can build(with my labor). So to me, the question is, DO I OWN IT? (you probably know where I'm going)
So I just "googled" 'reputation for a definition, and the following pulled up "1st":
1. the estimation in which a person or thing is held, especially by the community or the public generally; repute: a man of good reputation.
So there's interesting things to me in this definition:
#1 It refers to "held", which in my mind is "ownership", you yourself acknowledge that my reputation is a "construct" HELD(my word) in someone else's mind. I don't disagree, the question is do I also OWN it? Is it possible for a piece of property to be owned by two or more people? Yes. (and implicitly understood by the word "especially" in the definition)
#2 Does my labor,(labor theory of property!) create reputation for me when before I might have had none? YES!
It fits very well with the definitions of property by Locke, Spooner, & Bastiat IMO.
Rick-two more points that just popped into my head that I think are relevant to the whole discussion:
Delete1. Reinforcing that I do not advocate for control of others thoughts in any way, shape or form DOES NOT mean that I shouldn't be allowed to try and PERSUADE(not control) those that haven't violated the NAP that I have a "good" reputation.
So, it's important to distinguish "control" from "persuasion"(and not in the coercive sense, only by voluntary means) IMO.
2. I feel I need to expound on the concept of "multiple ownership" as in some ways it would be unique to ideas as opposed to material property and it's relevant to the concept of the right to ownership of those holding an opinion on my reputation and me holding a right to the reputation itself.
First, I'm not sure they are one in the same piece of property. Is someone's opinion of my reputation technically different from my reputation itself(as a construct in my mind). In other words, are they actually two separate things? (I leave this open at this point-but someone putting labor into actually harming MY reputation, which is different from simply holding an opinion of it, would seem to qualify as a NAP violation to me)
Second, ff they aren't separate pieces of property, how does it differ from us jointly owning a plane for example? Unlike a plane, there is no potential conflict over its joint use(the anti-ip loves this discourse), but the issue of "damage" still remains if we migrate towards this notion of joint "ownership". If two people own a plane and one wants to destroy it and the other wants to preserve it, what is the solution? I'm not sure any of this is practical/utilitarian...especially because the ownership assumes voluntary participation by both parties...
So just thinking aloud Rick, I think as we discuss and debate whether 'reputation' is property it might actually make sense to consider whether it may be two separate pieces "property", to both the holder of the opinion and the person working on it.....(though if your perspective remains that reputation is simply not property...you don't care one bit! lmao!)
Just some further thoughts...I look forward to your response.
So one last thing Rick(I apologize), because I don't think I'm being clear enough, but I consider the "opinion" someone holds of my reputation to be separate(property?) from my reputation itself(property in my mind).
DeleteThis is why I don't consider any labor on my part to improve(or "damage/dispose") MY reputation to be 'controlling' of the opinion of said reputation held by another.
I think if we think strictly in terms of "reputation" as a single piece of property(not distinguishing opinion of it that is held by multiple people) then we have no choice but to talk about the concept of multiple ownership as considered...but really I don't think it's relevant...I should have probably avoided it entirely.
Nick,
DeleteQuite a bit to respond to (apology accepted), but I will give it a shot:
"I would like to make clear that I do not advocate in any of my propositions that I claim ownership in others thoughts nor do advocate any philosophy that would do so."
As they say in real estate, it's all about location, location, location! So when you contemplate if you own your reputation, special consideration should be given to where this concept resides. Clearly, you understand that this concept resides in the minds of people other than yourself, and you concede that any attempt to influence the nature of their characterization is not done as an owner, but as an outsider.
So, I think we can move past that- as we both agree on that point- and conclude that you do not view yourself as the owner of other people's thoughts- and are not attempting intellectual tyranny!
Your second contention is that you are owner of the concept because you put labor into making the construct a positive for yourself, and that you gain property rights to that construct via Bastiat's labor theory of property. However, you concede that Bastiat's does not mention "reputation" or "attractiveness"1 in his definition, and I point out that all of the forms of labor that Bastiat considers property are dispensable- which Mises points out is the hallmark of ownership. While I agree that omission is not necessarily implication in Bastiat's definition, I think you should rethink whether or not you should apply his definition in the case of "reputation". An argument that putting labor into something that resides within the property rights of someone else- like their mind- makes said property your own cannot be justified. This leads us into your third contention...
Multiple ownership is contradicted by Mises in his book Socialism which I quoted above, but paste here as a reminder:
"Ownership in the natural sense cannot be limited; wherever one speaks of limitation, one means either a curtailment of a too-widely drawn juristic definition or recognition of the fact that ownership in the natural sense belongs concretely to someone other than the person whom the law recognizes as owner." (Page 275)
"...the power to dispose which belongs to him...which alone we call ownership, is indivisable and illimitable." (Page 275)
This does not mean, of course, that two parties cannot agree voluntarily to have mutual ownership (ability to dispose) of a piece of property. However, this arrangement cannot be conceived with regards to the concept of reputation. Furthermore, a person has absolutely no control over the disposal of "his"reputation because there is no access- the concept resides within the property of someone else. For those reasons, even multiple ownership cannot be utilized as a description of the nature of ownership of reputation.
If I have missed anything, please remind me! Looking forward to your thoughts...
Notes:
1. I would really love a response to this point:
"Note well, Bastiat does not offer concepts such as reputation (opinion of character) and appearance (opinion of beauty) as examples in his definition of property."
If you think Bastiat was incorrect to exclude such concepts from his definition, could you offer a defense of "appearance" as property? Or, explain why "appearance" is different than "reputation" with regards to property ownership, and cannot be considered as property via Bastiat.
"Note well, Bastiat does not offer concepts such as reputation (opinion of character) and appearance (opinion of beauty) as examples in his definition of property."
DeleteI think I have responded to it, at least to the part seeming relevant to me(which you agree to, that it is not a "proof").
I think you and I agree that that involuntary sharing of property is not feasible. So in our very good discussions about property(which is helping me and I hope is helping you) I am moving to exclusively my suggestion that:
"First, I'm not sure they are one in the same piece of property. Is someone's opinion of my reputation technically different from my reputation itself(as a construct in my mind). In other words, are they actually two separate things? (I leave this open at this point-but someone putting labor into actually harming MY reputation, which is different from simply holding an opinion of it, would seem to qualify as a NAP violation to me)"
I think this is the issue we must both focus on, is it possible, or even probable, that someone's opinion of my reputation is one piece of property(in their head) and my opinion of what my reputation a separate piece of property.
I think we should seriously consider this for this reason alone:
Both pieces of property can be improved or dispense with by labor.
I'm going to think about the logic of this for a day or two...if you have an immediate thought on the proposition please let me know.
Thank you again for your thoughts.
I do have a thought on this position (and the day off, so I have time to respond!)...
DeleteIt is firmly established that reputation is a mental construct which resides in the minds of individuals, and as such, belongs to each person who holds said construct. Also, we agree (do we not?) that putting labor into a reputation (attempting to influence in a positive or negative way) does not bestow ownership on said mental construct by the laborer- the concept still resides in the head of the individual that holds it, and is their property.1
For these reasons, the NAP does not apply.
Note
1. If you disagree, and think that someone putting labor into property owned by another person bestows ownership rights on said property, I would like you to explain that. I cannot imagine a way in which this could be so.
Also, this becomes a sticky proposition. With regards to reputation, this would imply that the person harming the reputation would become an owner, as well, due to their mixing of labor. Who now has property rights over the reputation? The subject, the harmer, or the poor soul stuck in the middle!? All three?
Interested in your responses to these points!
"Also, we agree (do we not?) that putting labor into a reputation (attempting to influence in a positive or negative way) does not bestow ownership on said mental construct by the laborer- the concept still resides in the head of the individual that holds it, and is their property."
DeleteI think we do not agree here.
In my mind, the question is this:
If I can put my labor into building(or disposing-solely to respect your view of property in the view of Mises) of my reputation(in my mind) and thereby consider it my property, as I outlined in conjunction with the labor theory of property highlighted by the above philosophers, at what point does somebody putting their labor into destroying it become a violation of the NAP?
That's how I see the basic question.
If we consider someone's OPINION of my reputation to be their property, I see no conflict as long as I don't use my labor to change their opinion DIRECTLY via use of force,a NAP violation as opposed to indirectly(like advertising, etc.) under persuasion(voluntary, not coercive).
Again, where the difficultly lies IMO is if they use their labor via fraud for example in damaging my reputation which I view as property.
For example, if they advertise my service is poor and it is not. There is a subjective element here unfortunately...a 'need' for a proceeding or ADR under which a third party might have to subjectively decide if such a fraud occurred. It might be obvious, it might not. (for instance, I think Wenzel just clearly made the case for the NYT's being an agent of the state, some Lefty's might disagree...at what point does a a third party need to decide?)
Again, I have no problem with the holder of OPINION having his right to his opinion of my reputation as it's his property...but when is his labor(or effort) to actually persuade other people considered a violation of the NAP? If his labor isn't actually damaging me because my service IS bad...it's not fraud because the damage is self inflicted, correct? But if his actions are fraudulent, then that damage is not self inflicted.
Also, I am asking you to allow us this open thought and discussion without reservation, but in exploration of what the truth "is"...so let us explore together and openly discuss as I'm not yet sure and frame these discussions now as instead of debate, discussion-as I feel it might be more appropriate.
"If I can put my labor into building(or disposing-solely to respect your view of property in the view of Mises) of my reputation(in my mind) and thereby consider it my property, as I outlined in conjunction with the labor theory of property highlighted by the above philosophers, at what point does somebody putting their labor into destroying it become a violation of the NAP?"
DeleteFirst, "building" and "disposing" are two different concepts. You do not construct a reputation, and proceed to hand it out to others whereby they install it in their mind. The people who hold your reputation in their minds build it themselves based on your ability to satisfy their expectations- it is their own mental construct as is indicated by the definition of reputation: "...the estimation in which a person or thing is held, especially by the community or the public generally..." Reputation is not the estimation in which a person is held, by that person. It is held by others.
This thing that you are building in your own mind (which you are calling your reputation) is in actuality a self image of what you perceive would earn you the good reputation. It is not the reputation itself. The only way this could be taken from you is through mind control- forcible extraction of your personal mental construct (a la Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind).
"If we consider someone's OPINION of my reputation to be their property, I see no conflict as long as I don't use my labor to change their opinion DIRECTLY via use of force,a NAP violation as opposed to indirectly(like advertising, etc.) under persuasion(voluntary, not coercive)."
However, your standards of property violation don't seem to apply the the person who is trying to persuade others that their opinion of your products or services is incorrect. Thus, your example: "if they advertise my service is poor and it is not." Fortunately, you understand that "there is a subjective element here..." Indeed! What about when you advertise that your products or services are the best thing since sliced bread? Because subjectivity is inherent in opinion, stating an opinion is not fraud!
And now for something completely different:
I think an interesting thought experiment with regards to this subject (reputation as property) is to imagine the inverse of the situation. Indeed Tom Woods has pointed out that when the NYT gave a crummy review of one of his books, the book proceeded to skyrocket in sales, even ending up on (ironically) the NYT bestseller list! Which makes me think about this:
What happens when a customer absolutely loves your product or service, and steers business your way? It seems to me that if someone harming your reputation deserves to be punished, then someone who bolsters your reputation deserves to be compensated. According to your logic, this person should be able to sue the business which they contributed to via their boosting of sales! I am curious of what you think about this proposition?
"...so let us explore together and openly discuss as I'm not yet sure and frame these discussions now as instead of debate, discussion-as I feel it might be more appropriate."
With this I can tell you sense some hostility on my part, and I hope I haven't acted inappropriately! I am concerned that you may be on the way to diminishing the fundamental premise on which libertarianism is built, and I do feel very passionate about it! Please don't take my spiritedness personally...I think it is great to pursue new frontiers with the NAP, but I think such a great philosophy deserves rigorous analysis when doing so!
Let me know what you think!
"First, "building" and "disposing" are two different concepts."
DeleteI never suggested they were, I'm not sure how you are considering otherwise.
"Because subjectivity is inherent in opinion, stating an opinion is not fraud!"
And this is a major sticking point between you and I. I draw I clear line between opinion and fraud.
It appears you do not. Fraud would be someone using their labor to knowingly spread an untruth about my reputation. That is different from an opinion. The NYT"s clearly has engaged in fraud, and while I joked about subjectivity earlier(prompting a response from Wenzel no less!), rest assure there are some Lefty's that feel the NYT's did no such thing... potentially REQUIRING A HEARING if to be resolved.
"However, your standards of property violation don't seem to apply the the person who is trying to persuade others that their opinion of your products or services is incorrect. Thus, your example: "if they advertise my service is poor and it is not." Fortunately, you understand that "there is a subjective element here..." Indeed! What about when you advertise that your products or services are the best thing since sliced bread? Because subjectivity is inherent in opinion, stating an opinion is not fraud!"
I quoted the entire above statement because you are conflating voluntary from involuntary.
The Block/NYT"s situation perfectly mirrors the issue as a whole. The NYT"s writer/editor states an OPINION, Block e-mails them with concrete proof that he is not pro involuntary slavery (all voluntary so far).
They e-mail back, "we are comfortable with our characterization".
BAM! Fraud! Plain and simple. Do you deny this?
"What happens when a customer absolutely loves your product or service, and steers business your way? It seems to me that if someone harming your reputation deserves to be punished, then someone who bolsters your reputation deserves to be compensated. According to your logic, this person should be able to sue the business which they contributed to via their boosting of sales! I am curious of what you think about this proposition?"
Rick, with all due respect, where is the NAP violation in any of the above? If someone, intending to or not, actually added value or increased someone's property holding voluntarily, how would the gaining party have violated the NAP? I think your above statement reflects a tendency for you to conflate voluntary/involuntary.
"With this I can tell you sense some hostility on my part, and I hope I haven't acted inappropriately!"
You haven't! I appreciate our dialog.
(this is a continuation of the last post, the site wouldn't allow for the total length, a sign I need to work on brevity)
Delete"I am concerned that you may be on the way to diminishing the fundamental premise on which libertarianism is built, and I do feel very passionate about it!"
And this was the reason for my statement. I want to diffuse anything in advance. So speaking plainly and with no ill will, I will tell you the concern I have with your viewpoints:
I think you and I both agree that the two key components to libertarianism are property and the NAP. As such, the definitions of both are critical.
I am looking to convince more people that the definition of property be expanded in an effort to reduce conflict and grow libertarianism(in my mind, that may not be reality, but that is why you and I are discussing).
The way I see your viewpoint on property currently:
I see it as exclusionary and implicitly justify the taking of one's property by way of usurpation of the labor theory of property. As a result I see it increasing conflict because of the impact on the NAP.
Now all that being said. Do I think either you or I intend on violating property rights or the NAP? No.
But that's why I want to clarify this is a discussion and not a debate, it's a bit of a preemption on my part in the hopes the discussion remains positive. The only other thing I have a concern about is whether we will be able to resolve difference in our consideration of what "property" is, because we are getting close to circular discussion.
After all that, one small edit:
Delete"I never suggested they WEREN'T"
One more small.edit:
Delete"implicitly justify the taking" to "implicitly justifying the taking and/or damage of one's property"
One last thing in all of this, dancing around the topic of fraud, versus libel...I really don't care anymore which violation of the NAP technically is seen here because the violations in question still come down to one issue, what is 'property'.
DeleteBlock's whole problem(and Rothbard's) with the idea of libel being a NAP violation is on the basis that they do not feel one's reputation is property. Obviously, I disagree.
I do not do so lightly, nor am I happy about it.
I feel I've presented a reasonable & logical case with scholars that are better/smarter before me feeling the same on the basis of the labor theory of property.
So in the event you don't like calling what the NYT's did to Dr. Block as "fraud", then feel free to call it libel(which you admit).
I appreciate your thoughts Rick.
Nick,
DeleteAny thoughts on this point?:
"You do not construct a reputation, and proceed to hand it out to others whereby they install it in their mind. The people who hold your reputation in their minds build it themselves based on your ability to satisfy their expectations- it is their own mental construct as is indicated by the definition of reputation: "...the estimation in which a person or thing is held, especially by the community or the public generally..." Reputation is not the estimation in which a person is held, by that person. It is held by others.
This thing that you are building in your own mind (which you are calling your reputation) is in actuality a self image of what you perceive would earn you the good reputation. It is not the reputation itself...."
Rick,
DeleteI disagree from the perspective of the labor theory of property in combination with Bastiat's specific reference to market value(which fits with the accounting discipline treatment of "goodwill").
Our discussions have been VERY helpful to me in that while I always felt sure of mental constructs being "property"(as defined by my first the above statement), I never dissected how it might specifically apply in reputation even though I had some intellectual capital(or mental labor-:)) in IP discussions here on EPJ that gave me some logical sureness in them being so.
That framework simply being that my reputation and someone's opinion are both property(separate) and that violations of the NAP should hold if I damage someone's property-distinguishing from someone voluntarily changing their opinion versus involuntarily.
I distinguish that aspect of voluntary opinion from fraud & libel, which I hold as a NAP violation from which I am allowed to protect myself(even by force)-which doesn't mean I'm forcing someone to change their opinion. I'm simply stopping their labor is damaging my reputation via fraud/libel.
I think the above is a tidy representation of my viewpoints, partially to which I credit you because of our awesome discussions in hashing out some of the details I never considered before.
"I think the above is a tidy representation of my viewpoints, partially to which I credit you because of our awesome discussions in hashing out some of the details I never considered before."
DeleteThanks Nick! I am glad that you found our discussion valuable, and I encourage you to continue hashing out this innovation regarding reputation as property...
That being said, while you may feel that you have "presented a reasonable & logical case with scholars that are better/smarter before me feeling the same on the basis of the labor theory of property...", you have come up short in both "presenting a reasonable and logical case" and providing scholars to support your case. I totally disagree with you regarding the subject, and agree with the analysis from Rothbard and Block specifically refuting the concept of reputation as property of the subject of the reputation.
Indeed, you have only cited one scholar thus far- Bastiat- and the quote you provide from him does not refer to reputation at all! Furthermore, Mises points out the essence of ownership is the ability to dispense something- an impossibility regarding reputation. The Mises insight renders the implications you are drawing from Basiat's labor theory of property thoroughly impotent.
The logic behind a person owning reputation- which by definition exists and is constructed in the mind of others- has remained unproven. Someone harming what you are calling "my reputation"- the construct in your own mind as to what you need to do to satisfy customer desires and how you are doing in planning and executing said construct- is impossible short of mind control! The mistake you are making is to muddy the waters as to the meaning of reputation- something I have brought to your attention: "Reputation is not the estimation in which a person is held, by that person. It is held by others."
With property rights of reputation belonging clearly to the person holding the opinion-rather than the subject of the opinion- any and all other concerns to the subject are irrelevant from the standpoint of the NAP.
"That being said, while you may feel that you have "presented a reasonable & logical case with scholars that are better/smarter before me feeling the same on the basis of the labor theory of property...", you have come up short in both "presenting a reasonable and logical case" and providing scholars to support your case. I totally disagree with you regarding the subject, and agree with the analysis from Rothbard and Block specifically refuting the concept of reputation as property of the subject of the reputation.
DeleteIndeed, you have only cited one scholar thus far- Bastiat- and the quote you provide from him does not refer to reputation at all! Furthermore, Mises points out the essence of ownership is the ability to dispense something- an impossibility regarding reputation. The Mises insight renders the implications you are drawing from Basiat's labor theory of property thoroughly impotent."
Holy cow Rick! You completely missed the references in our discussion to both Spooner and Locke!
Even further though, you just sunk your own logical ship, IF, as you state " Basiat's labor theory of property" is "thoroughly impotent." you've just undercut MURRAY ROTHBARD!
" If there is more land than can be used by a limited labor supply, then the unused land must simply remain unowned until a first user arrives on the scene"
Rothbard himself is using the labor theory right in print! So now that's FOUR SCHOLARS using it to different degrees.
I really don't know what to say beyond that Rick, as I mentioned earlier the arguments are getting circular. I'm sorry you don't feel I presented a good case, but I'm content to leave things as they are and let people read everything above and make their own decisions.
"Holy cow Rick! You completely missed the references in our discussion to both Spooner and Locke!"
DeleteYou are correct, I did forget your fleeting mentioning of those two scholars from a week ago. However, can you provide any quotations from these men in defending the idea that the reputation of a subject is the property of that subject? Or from Basitat? So far you have presented zero evidence that any of the scholars you are drawing from have ever considered reputation as property of the subject!
"Even further though, you just sunk your own logical ship, IF, as you state " Basiat's labor theory of property" is "thoroughly impotent." you've just undercut MURRAY ROTHBARD!"
I encourage you to read more carefully- I did not say Bastiat's labor theory of property is thoroughly impotent via Mises. Rather I said,"The Mises insight renders the implications you are drawing from Basiat's labor theory of property thoroughly impotent." Big difference!
"I'm sorry you don't feel I presented a good case, but I'm content to leave things as they are and let people read everything above and make their own decisions."
I concur! It has been a fun discussion, and I hope you can find some scholarly backing (or maybe further develop your own) for your opinion regarding the subject. I say that with sincerity, and not to be flippant- realizing that sincerity is hard to portray sincerity via a message board! I would love to read an article where you lay your case out for evaluation...
Thanks, Nick!
Rick,
Delete"So far you have presented zero evidence that any of the scholars you are drawing from have ever considered reputation as property of the subject!"
My argument Rick is the IP and reputation, both being constructs of the mind, should be treated as such in the same manner. Ipso facto.
If you would like to present what it is that differentiates IP from reputation given they are both mental constructs I am open, but when I am done on this response it will be the only avenue you have left to argue!
"I hope you can find some scholarly backing"- Here it is!
There is a HUGE amount of argument by the scholars I mentioned in IP. I covered this on EPJ on Bastiat alone(do a search here to find it). In the event you don't, I've listed links below:
http://lysanderspooner.org/intellect/contents.htm
(I'm not going to quote him considering the sub title is "AN ESSAY ON THE RIGHT OF AUTHORS AND INVENTORS TO A PERPETUAL PROPERTY IN THEIR IDEAS.")
http://mises.org/document/6299/
(Search EPJ for the relevent quote on IP as I reference the specifics)
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7370
I already quoted Rothbard.
Now, before I go on quoting the arguments of the two other scholars I linked as being pro-IP, and naturally labor theory as a result,(and assuming you find the Bastiat references on it here on EPJ I quoted before), would you like to state your position on whether you accept IP and reputation as being mental constructs within someone's mind? (I'm assuming you agree, because you stated so already above in previous arguments)
If you don't accept this, or the reason why they shouldn't be considered the same I certainly would appreciate an explanation as to why and you certainly must admit that distinction as being key to your argument.
Even further and for brevity, are you willing to accept that fact that 3 of the 4 scholars I listed above are clearly pro labor theory of property(Rothbard, the exception, having actually argued BOTH ways)?
"before I go on quoting the arguments of the two other scholars I linked as being pro-IP, and naturally labor theory as a result..."
DeleteScrew brevity! Go on with it! Provide one quote from the "HUGE amount of argument by the scholars (you) mentioned" which merely uses the word reputation! This quote does not even have to defend reputation as property of the subject! Just one utterance of the word would suffice!
In contrast, consider this analysis from Block and Rothbard where they specifically counter "a property right in one’s 'reputation'":
"The counter-view, and the current basis for holding libel and slander (especially of false statements) to be illegal is that every man has a “property right” in his own reputation, that Smith’s falsehoods damage that reputation, and that therefore Smith’s libels are invasions of Jones’s property right in his reputation and should be illegal. Yet, again, on closer analysis this is a fallacious view. For everyone, as we have stated, owns his own body; he has a property right in his own head and person. But since every man owns his own mind, he cannot therefore own the minds of anyone else. And yet Jones’s “reputation” is neither a physical entity nor is it something contained within or on his own person. Jones’s “reputation” is purely a function of the subjective attitudes and beliefs about him contained in the minds of other people. But since these are beliefs in the minds of others, Jones can in no way legitimately own or control them. Jones can have no property right in the beliefs and minds of other people." (Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty pg. 126)
"But what is a person’s “reputation”? What is this thing which may not be “taken lightly”? Clearly, it is not a possession which may be said to belong to him in the way, for example, his clothes do. In fact, a person’s reputation does not “belong” to him at all. A person’s reputation is what other people think of him; it consists of the thoughts which other people have. A man does not own his reputation any more than he owns the thoughts of others—because that is all his reputation consists of. A man’s reputation cannot be stolen from him any more than can the thoughts of other people be stolen from him. 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. (Block, Defending the Undefendable pg. 49)"
Furthermore, Rothbard points out that an attempt to defend "a property right in one’s 'reputation'" is impossible, aggressive, and criminal!
"In fact, of course, people’s subjective attitudes and ideas about someone or his product will fluctuate continually, and hence it is impossible for Brown to stabilize his reputation by coercion; certainly it would be immoral and aggressive against other people’s property right to try. Aggressive and criminal, then, either to outlaw one’s competition or to outlaw false libels spread about one or one’s product." (Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty Pg. 127)
"Screw brevity! Go on with it! Provide one quote from the "HUGE amount of argument by the scholars (you) mentioned" which merely uses the word reputation!"
DeleteUp to this point Rick, we've have pretty cordial discussions.
I think you want to mire me in bullshit, because your argument is bullshit. Before I entertain any more of your bullshit, I want a simple answer to my simple question so we can eliminate the bullshit:
"would you like to state your position on whether you accept IP and reputation as being mental constructs within someone's mind?"
Will you answer this question or not?
"If you don't accept this, or the reason why they shouldn't be considered the same I certainly would appreciate an explanation"
This is part 2 of the question. I'm not going any further until you can answer those two questions. If you refuse to answer them, then there is no point in going further as you are not being genuine or logical in our discussions.
Nick,
Delete"Up to this point Rick, we've have pretty cordial discussions.
I think you want to mire me in bullshit, because your argument is bullshit. Before I entertain any more of your bullshit, I want a simple answer to my simple question so we can eliminate the bullshit:"
I am not sure what was offensive about my request! No offense intended!
In answering your two questions, reputation cannot belong to the subject of the reputation because, as Rothbard and Block point out (as well as the definition of the word), reputation does not exist within the property of the subject of the reputation.
I think- for the most part- we are talking past each other, and I would like to close this discussion. That said, it has been fun hashing this out together, and I hope you will keep at it and perhaps even write an article for EPJ regarding the subject. I would sure like to hear others contribute to the discussion- as I am sure there are about two people in the world following ours!
Thanks again, and good luck!
"In answering your two questions, reputation cannot belong to the subject of the reputation because, as Rothbard and Block point out (as well as the definition of the word), reputation does not exist within the property of the subject of the reputation."
DeleteReally, I have no idea what this means.
I've demonstrated that labor theory can be applied to the mental construct of reputation(even if you and I disagree about who "owns it"), the definition itself refers reputation being "held"(is there any really disagreement there?), and even if you want to use a separate definition by Block/Rothbard based on what their viewpoint of what property is defined by(notwithstanding Rothbard's seeming variation on said definition) you haven't given me the courtesy of acknowledging that there are scholars on the other side of the debate via the IP paradigm.
You're answer is still not forthcoming on that topic, because you never bother to explain what differentiates "IP" from "Reputation", instead your answer is "Screw Brevity!"
How could I not be offended? It isn't even gentlemanly in our discussions. I acknowledged your repetition of Block/Rothbard's argument, you don't need to repeat it over and over again while ignoring my arguments/questions- you won't even give me the courtesy of acknowledging the scholars on the other side of the debate.
It makes you look disingenuous(because you don't seem unintelligent to me).
For the debate to actually move forward and be productive, you'd have to differentiate IP from Reputation- and it's the courteous thing to do instead of claiming just because the 3 scholars I listed all refer to "IP" instead of specifically "reputation"(which is IP in my opinion) that my argument is "bad", not logical, etc.
IP by Block's/Rothbard's(1/2 of Rothbard actually) definition "does not exist within the property of the subject", so you have to explain then where the Labor Theory/IP scholars are wrong naturally.
My whole point being Rick is, that while I acknowledge there are great thinkers on one side of the debate and try to discuss the merits/weaknesses on the topic, you are suggesting that the scholars I mention on the other side aren't relevant...I suppose on the basis you don't see IP and "reputation" as the same. Sorry, I see that as bullshit.
If you don't explain how the two are different(and you haven't!), how do we move forward?
"I think- for the most part- we are talking past each other, and I would like to close this discussion."
I agree.
to Anonymous February 03 08.57 pm (and also JT out of Barrow): WB is not an anarchist of any sort, he is like all of us a limited government costitutionalist and you - when use this anarchist qualification - make me fear are not a true libertarian but the usual Jerry Wolfang of this post comments: so really please don't mix meanings, you are only risking being a Milquetoast Libertarian (see bionic mosquito on epj january 28).
ReplyDeleteplease provide a link to an article / interview / video where Dr. Block denies that he is an Ancap and calls himself a minarchist.
DeleteHere is an interview where the host calls Dr. Block an anarcho capitalist. He does not deny the claim. He does not call himself a minarchist.
Deletehttp://dailyanarchist.com/2010/09/06/daily-anarchist-interviews-walter-block/
And I sir.............will challenge YOU to a duel if you ever group me with Wolfgang again.
Delete.
ancap-fearing milquetoast libertarians...............indeed!
We're waiting luigilamour
DeleteAnd surely it will be useful - in respect of towering libertarian figure of Rothbard - just to give up following silly and unending discussions on anarchist, minarchist that only now I realize stay for limited government costitutionalist ..and so on my point being all of us want to follow the line of thought suggested by Rothbard in the 1977 article Do You Hate The State? recently republished in LvMI blog (july 27 2012) and indicated as 30° day of Robert Wenzel's 30-day reading list to ..lead you to become a knowledgeable libertarian ..so I can rectify this way ..WB in my view is a radical libertarian in the Rothbardian sense definining him an anCap is not so good when we have to explain or understand his moves.
Delete"In short, the plan all along was to lie, make money, and cost Block money. That's an attack, Block is the victim, damages are realized, and therefore the NAP is violated."
ReplyDeleteSo, if I can show that Person A lied about me so that he would make money and so that I would lose money, I can sue for libel?
If that reasoning holds, doesn't this make the tort of libel available to ALL people? Doesn't the above- mentioned impeach Dr. Block's original assertion that the tort of libel should have no place within libertarianism?
If I understand things correctly, Mr. Wenzel focused his argument on the NYT being an agent of the State because using the State (court system) to hurt the State (NYT) is permissible under libertarianism. If we are talking about private sector entities, however, no exception applies.