Is a Man's Reputation His Property?

[Reece]

Well, I'm off for a bit. It was nice discussing this issue with you Sailing

 

[sailingaway]

Well, I'm off for a bit. It was nice discussing this issue with you Sailing

nice discussing it with you, too! 'Night!

 

[osan]

I find it interesting to note how word's are discounted in this post as indicated by the question:

In what way has aggression been committed against me if someone runs around telling scurrilous lies about me?​

That such a question is seriously posited indicates a profound lack of understanding of the truer value of language. It indicates several other things as well, but I will not go into those here as I have given them treatment in other threads and am tired of repeating my boring self yet another time.

What I will repeat is that language forms our world in ways most people are not even remotely aware. Were they to become sufficiently aware of the place of prominence and import language occupies, they would be moved to reconsider the ways in which they regard and make use of their words. A sufficient understanding of the true significance of language would mean such questions as the one above would never arise.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I find it interesting to note how word's are discounted in this post as indicated by the question:

In what way has aggression been committed against me if someone runs around telling scurrilous lies about me?​

That such a question is seriously posited indicates a profound lack of understanding of the truer value of language. It indicates several other things as well, but I will not go into those here as I have given them treatment in other threads and am tired of repeating my boring self yet another time.

What I will repeat is that language forms our world in ways most people are not even remotely aware. Were they to become sufficiently aware of the place of prominence and import language occupies, they would be moved to reconsider the ways in which they regard and make use of their words. A sufficient understanding of the true significance of language would mean such questions as the one above would never arise.

+rep!

 

[idiom]

So in a 'free market' branding and marketing should not exist as competitive advantages?

 

[Ender]

So how does that work? And is it based on a sound footing of respect for property rights? Does this "libel, slander, defamation" respect everyone's property?

If someone is lying about and defaming you, you can get a restraining order against them that basically says they must keep their mouth shut concerning you and your life.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

So in a 'free market' branding and marketing should not exist as competitive advantages?

That could be an entire thread on it's own.

edit: Is the name "Ron Paul" a brand, as in (tm) or (R)?

 

[Natural Citizen]

+Reputation.

Which, btw, happen to be nothing more than simple little green dots of digital intellectual property. Ah haaaa...

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Reputation cannot be owned, because it's the perception in which others view you, and based upon your own actions.

 

[green73]

Reputation cannot be owned, because it's the perception in which others view you

You're talking too much sense.

 

[sailingaway]

Reputation cannot be owned, because it's the perception in which others view you, and based upon your own actions.

I disagree, but I've already been through it, and I don't really want to do it again.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

but I don't think it is just the facts but the reputation you built through actually living that life that you are entitled to defend or get recompense for damage regarding, if the damaging statements were knowingly or recklessly false and forseeably damaging.

Excellent, so there's an implied "yes" there before the "but", I think. So we've now determined a lot of things. The next thing to figure out: what exactly is "reputation"? Please define reputation for me, sailingaway, in your own words.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

"Hello 911? I just saw Chris Dorner go into Helmuth Huberner's house!! They are working together! I just heard gunshots!! Come quickly!!"

/thread

This is a excellent question! And what about the person who calls the pizza place and claims that I want 20 pizzas (or even just 1)? Clearly telling scurrilous lies about me can be an aggressive act. Under what conditions? Is all telling of scurrilous lies aggression? What do people think?

 

[Pericles]

So in a 'free market' branding and marketing should not exist as competitive advantages?

The issue is that the Rothbard clique view reputation in terms of "property" and are trying to figure who or if it is even possible to "own" it.

The better analogy in my view is to view reputation in terms of the "market price" of a person's ethical behavior. Honorable actions (real or perceived) increase the market price of one's reputation, and thus personal price point, while unethical behavior (real or perceived) decrease the market price of one's reputation. Libel does the reputation harm by lowering its value unjustly. Markets need information to price accurately. False information distorts the markets - just as a fraud does by having a transaction occur at too high a price, thus impacting the market price of a good or service.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

If one stops and thinks about it, the idea that reputation is property is laughable.

and yet there is a guy on a rampage in Los Angeles over this very issue who isn't laughing a bit.

 

[acptulsa]

The person hammering the car is directly damaging the property; the tree branch falling is not directly caused by any human.

Both the lie and the truth have the same effect on the person's property. If a person does not own their reputation, they do not harm the person's property in the slightest. If the person does own their reputation, both the truth and the lie harm the person's property, and both should be punished similarily to the hammer dropper.

Punished? Paying restitution after you've harmed someone is punishment? Can't restitution be restitution?

Perhaps the anarchists, and certainly the sophists, may be content to believe a reputation has more rights than a human. But I say a human has the right to tell the truth, period. If people tell the truth about you and your reputation suffers, a branch didn't fall on your car. You parked your car under the branch, then climbed up and sawed the branch off.

How about this one--does a person have a right to establish and maintain a bad reputation? Or are reputations like camp--you get trophies just for showing up? Because I say if a person wants a bad reputation, and works at having a bad reputation, he should be free to have a bad reputation--and you're a complete asshole for trying to make people think highly of him.

I find it interesting to note how word's are discounted in this post as indicated by the question:

In what way has aggression been committed against me if someone runs around telling scurrilous lies about me?​

That such a question is seriously posited indicates a profound lack of understanding of the truer value of language. It indicates several other things as well, but I will not go into those here as I have given them treatment in other threads and am tired of repeating my boring self yet another time.

What I will repeat is that language forms our world in ways most people are not even remotely aware. Were they to become sufficiently aware of the place of prominence and import language occupies, they would be moved to reconsider the ways in which they regard and make use of their words. A sufficient understanding of the true significance of language would mean such questions as the one above would never arise.

A sufficient understanding of the true significance of language would have prevented some of these people in this thread from making green phosphorescent jackasses of themselves by accusing me of being the most horrible pinko commie ever for inventing this libel and slander stuff that has been on the books for the last quarter of the Second Millenium.

I hope they make asses of themselves as self-identified anarchists, not libertarians. I don't want my reputation to suffer when they go all stupid in public.

Reputation cannot be owned, because it's the perception in which others view you, and based upon your own actions.

This:

You're talking too much sense.

How did you wind up in this thread with these obnoxious sophists, PoP? You seem to have mistaken them for someone who wants something to do with reality.

Excellent, so there's an implied "yes" there before the "but", I think. So we've now determined a lot of things.

Mostly we've determined that if you can't stuff your own words in someone else's mouth, you don't want to talk to that person at all. But if it makes you feel any better, I don't want to talk to you either.

And no, I did not leave out or leave 'implied' one single word. The sentences above stand clear and as intended. No meaning is hidden within them.

So, this stuff has been around since two hundred years before I was born, but I'm more evil than Stalin for inventing them, and if they're ever implemented the sky will turn purple and all the world's wombats will grow third eyes. Oh, and ignorance is no excuse, too.

Sophistry and anarchy. A match made in Heaven...

 

[helmuth_hubener]

So, this stuff has been around since two hundred years before I was born, but I'm more evil than Stalin for inventing them, and if they're ever implemented the sky will turn purple and all the world's wombats will grow third eyes. Oh, and ignorance is no excuse, too.

You'll note that I never called you evil, acptulsa, nor insulted you in any way. But maybe that's because I used to live in Tulsa and I like people from Tulsa. Anyway, you have just been explaining the way the libel, slander, and defamation laws work as they exist at present. I understood that, after a little while.

 

[acptulsa]

You'll note that I never called you evil, acptulsa, nor insulted you in any way.

True.

Didn't say you did.

Didn't imply it, either.

You're not the only person here.

Holler the next time you visit. I'll buy you a Weber's root beer.

 

[osan]

So in a 'free market' branding and marketing should not exist as competitive advantages?

It never ceases to amaze me how screwed up the thinking displayed in a thread can get. Not yours specifically, but in general and in such a way that would lead you, for example, to be prompted to ask such a question.

So let us once again strip away all the nonsense attached to the issue through faulty vision and get to the heart of the matter at hand.

We, the individual beings of the world, live in various states of proximity to each other, depending most obviously upon our geographic happenstance. Those states of proximity are what we call "society", which is nothing more than that choice of proximity. Society is a collection of individuals and holds no other reality of its own other than that. It is a mental construct alone, yet people most often come to attribute to it characteristics and qualities not in credibly demonstrable evidence. Why is that? Habit. Bad habit. Very bad.

As such, they come to saddle themselves with all manner of creeping insanity wherein they accept and reassert wildly wrong beliefs that include ones that state "society has the right to <insert your favorite idiot cliche>". The purpose of such nonsense is to bolster other, equally and dangerously false beliefs pursuant to an agenda whose purposes are often benign enough, yet whose results are often monumentally disastrous for some innocent party. Uncle Adolph v. those he decided were unworthy of life comes to mind, as do Uncle Joe and Chairman Mao.

So, here we are living around one another in varying forms and degrees of social intimacy. Each of us have our likes, dislikes, our desires and needs, as well as those things we wish to avoid. This is part of not just the fabric of humanity, but of life itself and can be observed in the manifest behavior of nearly all living things.

Part and parcel of our social proclivities includes interaction of all manners, be they sexual, friendly, filial, religious, "cultural", or trade-oriented. In the course of such interactions between individuals and their fellows there are bumps in the mostly smooth roadways upon which they travel together. Being what we are, we make mistakes in our dealings with others. We communicate imprecisely, mis-measure, over-step boundaries by flawed intend or accident, and so forth. People are in very broad agreement that it in general it is a good idea to make amends when such errors occur, whether they be intentionally committed or otherwise. This is because it is best, not for "society", but for each individual making it up that we be on nominally honest terms with one another. In so being, larger problems that lead to disastrous and most often violent results are avoided.

Because we most often avoid things which do us damage of one form or another, ignoring such exceptional cases as drug abuse, trust becomes a centrally important element in our interactions with one another. When we buy food from the market, we need to trust that the food is wholesome and non-toxic or we would have to make other arrangements for our daily sustenance. When we trade, we must trust that the mediums of exchange, currency for example, are genuine, not counterfeit, and of themselves properly representative of value, vague as that notion tends to be. When at the barbershop getting a shave I must trust the barber will not cut my throat with that razor because my very existence depends on it.

As a man grows from childhood he develops his habits of behavior and those around him observe and remember his character as made manifest and apparent through his actions. With respect to each element of interpersonal interaction they observe and file away how he behaves among and with his fellows and attached to the memories are the personal evaluations of trustworthiness. As the people around him get to know him better through interaction, a broader picture of the man's overall trustworthiness evolves and this becomes the measure of the man and it enshrined as part of his "reputation".

In addition, there are numerous other characteristics not attached to trustworthiness per se. These elements may or may not be regarded as "secondary" characteristics. Personal hygiene might be one, for example. Whether a given quality counts may perhaps be dependent on how important the consideration is in the mind of a given person, but these are secondary considerations to my way of seeing things and I will not dwell on them any longer. In my mind, the trust issue is the biggest and most important question by far.

A "good" reputation means a man is trustworthy, generally speaking. A man's reputation often precedes him, though not always. In those cases where it does, it affects his ability to move within his circles and to make inroads into new ones. It is his calling card of sorts and while written primarily by him, it is contributed to by those with whom he has contact as well as complete strangers. People talk and others listen, for better and for worse. Once someone makes an unflattering entry into the reputation of another man, others see it and the man's reputation comes under scrutiny. Depending on what is said, how it is said, and the source of the comment, reputations may well suffer such that one's ability to interact with others is measurably and qualitatively altered for the better or worse.

While it may be arguable that the undeserved augmentation of a man's reputation is not harmful to either the man or the larger body of his fellows, it would be indeed difficult to argue that the undeserved disparagement of his reputation is most definitely harmful to one and all fro reasons I will not here address unless someone specifically wishes to pursue the issue.

Given this truth about what constitutes a reputation and the place it occupies in the lives of not only its "owner" but those around him, familiar and otherwise, it should be at least marginally clear that the things people say actually mean something and that their words often have real effects in the lives of the persons about whom they speak. Because of this, onus is upon us all not to trespass against our fellows by unjustly sullying the perception that others may hold of them through false or unreasonably negative utterances, writings, and other communications speaking to their reputations. This does not mean that we cannot have our opinions of a man, but it does suggest that some care is warranted in the exercise of the right to express them. I believe that people are indeed accountable for the things they express and when those expressions unjustly impact another in a negative manner they may be so held.

Just another plugged nickel's worth from the republic of me.

 

[osan]

Reputation cannot be owned, because it's the perception in which others view you, and based upon your own actions.

This is not 100% true. People, being what they are, often mistakenly or intentionally sully the reputation of a man resulting in readily quantifiable or qualified losses.

Reputation is owned in the sense that everyone gets a copy of it. My perception of someone's reputation is mine and you can't have it in the sense of owning my copy, but once I express it to you, you have a copy of your own to which you will add and subtract as you go along.