helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
In another thread, we got off-topic and started talking about this issue. So here is a thread to discuss it more.
Pericles got things started with this post:
I find this amusing because I find one of the internal conflicts of Rothbard's work on display here. The notion that the free market helps makes contracts self enforcing by reputational risk of people who acquire a reputation of breaking contracts are less desirable as players in the free market - so people will honor contracts to maintain good reputations. Thus, one might assume that reputations are valuable, and a libel does harm to someone by harming his reputation. But, Rothbard does not want to go there due to the possibility of libel laws and the conflict of my thoughts and words belong to me, so he says he pays no attention to reputation on the assumption that everybody lies about everybody else in order to obtain competitive advantage.
Ron Paul's reputation is either valuable or it isn't - which?
~~~
To which I replied:
~~~
The conversation continued:
OK. So if a real property right exists, then it should be enforced/defended. How is a property right in other people's thoughts defended? Force them to think different thoughts. That's the only way I can think of.
So if there is a group of people which are systematically violating my rights by ceasing to think favorable thoughts about me and instead thinking unfavorable thoughts, then I have the right to make them stop, and maybe also to punish them somehow, make them pay me retribution. After all, they are destroying my property.
This seems to be the logical conclusion of saying that one literally has a property right in his reputation. If that's literally true, then that means that one owns the thoughts of other people. He owns their brains, that is. He has the right to go into their brains and root out the bad thoughts and perpetuate the good thoughts, just as he has the right to weed his backyard and plant a garden on it. His backyard spaces, other people's brains, it's all the same, it's all his property. He can do whatever he wants with them. Right?
~~~
And continued:
If not, is it maybe the listening that causes the rights violation? If there is no one hearing and processing the information with his brain, then no harm, no foul? Then that comes back to owning brains again. Or, here's an alternative: Perhaps it must be that I own other people's conversations, and thus am allowed to police them for content. Is that what you're saying? I own the conversations?
~~~
And wound up here:
Pericles got things started with this post:
I find this amusing because I find one of the internal conflicts of Rothbard's work on display here. The notion that the free market helps makes contracts self enforcing by reputational risk of people who acquire a reputation of breaking contracts are less desirable as players in the free market - so people will honor contracts to maintain good reputations. Thus, one might assume that reputations are valuable, and a libel does harm to someone by harming his reputation. But, Rothbard does not want to go there due to the possibility of libel laws and the conflict of my thoughts and words belong to me, so he says he pays no attention to reputation on the assumption that everybody lies about everybody else in order to obtain competitive advantage.
Ron Paul's reputation is either valuable or it isn't - which?
~~~
To which I replied:
His reputation consists of thoughts in other people's heads. This reputation is valuable to him, definitely. But it is not his property. The thoughts of the millions of people which make up his reputation belong to the respective heads in which they reside.
~~~
The conversation continued:
Let's go with your idea, then. Let's see what it means. So, let's say I have a right to my reputation. It's my property. You can't go around destroying my property without my permission.
OK. So if a real property right exists, then it should be enforced/defended. How is a property right in other people's thoughts defended? Force them to think different thoughts. That's the only way I can think of.
So if there is a group of people which are systematically violating my rights by ceasing to think favorable thoughts about me and instead thinking unfavorable thoughts, then I have the right to make them stop, and maybe also to punish them somehow, make them pay me retribution. After all, they are destroying my property.
This seems to be the logical conclusion of saying that one literally has a property right in his reputation. If that's literally true, then that means that one owns the thoughts of other people. He owns their brains, that is. He has the right to go into their brains and root out the bad thoughts and perpetuate the good thoughts, just as he has the right to weed his backyard and plant a garden on it. His backyard spaces, other people's brains, it's all the same, it's all his property. He can do whatever he wants with them. Right?
~~~
And continued:
In what way has aggression been committed against me if someone runs around telling scurrilous lies about me?
Are you sure? What if the culprit's mouth is saying these scurrilous lies to an empty room? If no one hears, has there still, technically, been a violation of my property rights? I mean, for practical purposes, I might not find out about it and so he won't be prosecuted, but has he violated my rights if no one listened?
If not, is it maybe the listening that causes the rights violation? If there is no one hearing and processing the information with his brain, then no harm, no foul? Then that comes back to owning brains again. Or, here's an alternative: Perhaps it must be that I own other people's conversations, and thus am allowed to police them for content. Is that what you're saying? I own the conversations?
~~~
And wound up here:
If I am wrong, tell me what is right.
Last edited:
quick
