Is a Man's Reputation His Property?

[Demigod]

I don't understand how laws that punish public slander against a person are authoritarian and anti free-speech.You can say what ever you want but if you intend to publicly state false facts about me ,I should be able to take to court where you can then prove your facts.

The argument I always read here is "Well you should tell your version and counter the lies with your facts".So I should be spending MY TIME countering lies told by my opponents not to mention that once the seed is planted no amount of facts will ever repair the full damage.Also how does one counter the smear on their reputation when the the one telling the lies has an audience of 20-30% of the population MSM and you have no way to address that many people ?

In my country there is only a fine for slandering if you are a private person,if you are a public one or a journalist then you pay a find and must give the person you slandered the same medium from which you did the slandering.This way if Hannity slanders you on TV,and you take him to court you can then go on his show and make your case.

 

[jj-]

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.

It's nothing but his authoritarian pet issue. He has given no rational basis for justifying it and implied that private property shouldn't be protected, and that the right to tell the truth trumps the right to private property, lol. It's really a third-grade quality argument.

 

[jj-]

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

Yeah, but authoritarians have no problem with violating freedom of thought and of speech to make sure people think highly of them.

 

[jj-]

Punished? Paying restitution after you've harmed someone is punishment?

There are all sorts of damages that should be ignored by the government. When my GF cheated on me, she caused me great harm. When a competitor opened a business, I lost a lot of money. If a person tells another person she is fat, or ugly, she might get some psychological discomfort, lose her focus for some time, and not be as productive during that time and thus lose money. The only types of damage that the government should address are attacks to people's physical integrity, their physical belongings, and violations of contracts.

 

[Danan]

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.

But then telling positive lies about a business should be illegal too. It lowers the market value of their competitors if people run around praising a company's products, telling everybody that they are the best on the market, even though they are not really that good. So Samsung would have a good case for sueing every Apple disciple out there...

 

[jj-]

But then telling positive lies about a business should be illegal too.

What not just make lying illegal? Lying can cause all sorts of unpredictable damage.

 

[acptulsa]

What not just make lying illegal? Lying can cause all sorts of unpredictable damage.

Do you seriously expect a bunch of politicians to make lying illegal? Most of them would have to have their vocal cords surgically removed.

 

[jj-]

Do you seriously expect a bunch of politicians to make lying illegal? Most of them would have to have their vocal cords surgically removed.

That's a distraction. I'm just showing what kind of policy his argument requires if he is consistent. And to your distraction, yes, politicians could make lying illegal and exempt themselves, like they do with many other things.

 

[Danan]

What not just make lying illegal? Lying can cause all sorts of unpredictable damage.

For the record, I was just using Pericles' argument that whether or not lying causes harm should determine if the liar has to pay compensation or not, to show that even positive lies / exaggerations would meet this criterion.

Also, as someone mentioned, sometimes people tell lies about themselves to intentionally "harm" their reputation, while still profiting from it ("bad boy image", etc). Would telling the truth about them be allowed, even though it harms their profits? What about lies about them that harm reputation but increase the victims market value? Could they still be compensated for the lies?

Personally, I don't really know whether I'm fine with all lies being allowed, that are intentionally told to harm a person or business. AF's example was a good one. There is also the famous shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre to cause chaos. Those are really complicated issues. On the one hand, I don't pity lying assholes too much if they have to compensate their victims, even though I can't justify those laws by rigid reasoning. On the other hand, those laws can easily be used to prohibit free speech, even when "knowingly telling falsehoods" or even just "telling falsehoods" cannot be proven sufficiently.

There are also many unintended consiquences mentioned in this thread. Like people believing every bullshit being told, "'cause otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to say it".

 

[sailingaway]

It's nothing but his authoritarian pet issue. He has given no rational basis for justifying it and implied that private property shouldn't be protected, and that the right to tell the truth trumps the right to private property, lol. It's really a third-grade quality argument.

Uh, no. I see it as an item that is definitely valuable, there is no question there, and it is built by the person who lived the life without actually performing the untrue accusations. Untrue accusations damage or destroy it, and I think that should be recompensible.

Calling names does not make for a stronger argument on your side.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

What effect does telling a lie about person A have on those that use "reputation" to determine what, if any, associations they will or won't have with person A?

Also, Integrity is one word used to describe an attribute within a person that leads to their reputation.

I think we've already determined that (most everyone?) believes that the government should not create "laws" in these cases or pursue "just us" on their own. I think we are looking at possible "civil suits" brought up by those that deem themselves harmed.

 

[Reece]

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

Yes, the "punishment" I meant was 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.

I don't think a reputation should have more rights than a human. My position is simply that all humans have the right to do what they like with their bodies and their property as long as it does not stop other people from using their bodies or property. A reputation is what is percieved by other people, and other people clearly have the right to their own bodies and therefore can think what they like about any other person. They can also write their thoughts down on their own property.

If a person has a "right" to a "true" reputation then this would conflict with other rights. Ironically, the reputation would have more rights than the human in your scenario, where the human does not have the right to write what he chooses because of someone else's "right" to a reputation.

Also, who determines what is true and false? There are many things, like economics, that people heavily disagree on what is "true". And, there are other things that matter on definitions. If I call you a liar, and point out that everyone has lied at least once in their life, would I have to pay restitution for any damages? Or, even in my poisoned food example earlier, could I call the food at your store poisoned, and then say I consider sugar a poison?

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.

A reputation is what is percieved by other people. And other people have the right to think what they like about any other person. 200 years ago, if I wrote books against slavery, I would probably have a "bad reputation" among the population. But I clearly don't have a "right" to this bad reputation, because 200 years later I might have a good reputation.

 

[jtstellar]

it's funny.. you all think you are libertarian philosophers now, but everywhere i look, your theories really aren't very deep and are full of holes. to imply there shouldn't be any court arbitration in regards to reputation, it is to say people can falsely advertise too, because if someone can't harm your reputation and be at fault, it would be silly to "misrepresent" yourself in the same breath and be held accountable. in that world, anybody can falsely advertise against their market competitor's products with all kinds of lies and deceits and you can lie about your own product as well, because presentation doesn't mean anything. if you can misrepresent others to be worse, why not do it to yourself and be better. chief, i have a 10 million dollar house here i want to sell you, contact me.

i think what you're really getting at is "is there an anarchic solution to this" and trust me, even if there were, that question is beyond you, from the depth i am observing here by the thread starter.

 

[Reece]

it's funny.. you all think you are libertarian philosophers now, but everywhere i look, your theories really aren't very deep and are full of holes. to imply there shouldn't be any court arbitration in regards to reputation, it is to say people can falsely advertise too, because if someone can't harm your reputation and be at fault, it would be silly to "misrepresent" yourself in the same breath and be held accountable. in that world, anybody can falsely advertise against their market competitor's products with all kinds of lies and deceits and you can lie about your own product as well, because presentation doesn't mean anything. if you can misrepresent others to be worse, why not do it to yourself and be better. chief, i have a 10 million dollar house here i want to sell you, contact me.

i think what you're really getting at is "is there an anarchic solution to this" and trust me, even if there were, that question is beyond you, from the depth i am observing here by the thread starter.

It isn't full of holes. You assume it is full of holes.

When you make a trade with someone there is either a direct contract or an implied one. If I make an agreement to sell you 5 pens for 1 dollar and I only give you 4, that is fraud. This would be taken care of with arbitration, as you said.

If I write or tell someone that you are only giving 4 pens instead of 5 (whether this is true or not), I did not make an agreement with anyone, and so I did not commit fraud. I did say earlier that it is likely in a free society that media companies would agree to arbitration, and in that case they would be committing fraud.

I think most of the posts before were on rights though, not on solutions to these problems, so I don't think "is there an anarchic solution to this?" was really the point.

 

[Occam's Banana]

nvm: wrong thread. :o

 

[Pericles]

But then telling positive lies about a business should be illegal too. It lowers the market value of their competitors if people run around praising a company's products, telling everybody that they are the best on the market, even though they are not really that good. So Samsung would have a good case for sueing every Apple disciple out there...

I make the best X (when I don't ) is the same as saying all of my competitors are crap, but in a nice way. The point is that propagating falsehood should have a cost associated with it, and truth should be rewarded. The goal of having a free and efficient market, means that market participants need accurate information in order to make voluntary exchanges at the efficient price. Inaccurate information distorts the market and reputation is part of the information that market participants (even if only in the marketplace of ideas) need for good decision making.

 

[jj-]

I make the best X (when I don't ) is the same as saying all of my competitors are crap, but in a nice way. The point is that propagating falsehood should have a cost associated with it, and truth should be rewarded. The goal of having a free and efficient market, means that market participants need accurate information in order to make voluntary exchanges at the efficient price. Inaccurate information distorts the market and reputation is part of the information that market participants (even if only in the marketplace of ideas) need for good decision making.

Oh, it looks like we have an utilitarian here.

 

[Shane Harris]

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

I tend to agree.

 

[Pericles]

Oh, it looks like we have an utilitarian here.

I'm not, but the laws of economics tend to be.

 

[bolil]

Reputation is not property. Reputation, as it is understood, is the estimation of an individual by other individuals. My estimations of George the invader bush or Barack the drone bomber Obama are not their property. A result of their actions, mayhaps, but not their property.