Is a Man's Reputation His Property?

[osan]

I don't understand how laws that punish public slander against a person are authoritarian and anti free-speech.

They aren't. The free speech protections of the First Amendment are intended to protect ones right to express OPINION and assertions of FACT. It does not, however, always protect one whose utterances serve as causes of real damage.

Words have meaning, value, and effect. Not all speech is free. Is my speech free to solicit another to murder my neighbor?

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.

Exactly. We are responsible for ALL out actions including our utterances. That last bit has been grossly devalued because language is disregarded as a significant thing while it is the single most significant thing in the lives of human beings though they fail to be aware of it.

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 ?

Exactly right. Some douche spreads lies about you, negatively impacting your ability to move in circles of your fellows and onus then resides with YOU to do the damage control? "You shouldn't have worn that dress miss. No wonder you were raped."

People fall for the illusion that words are harmless just because one's arm doesn't come flying immediately off in the wake of someone's speech as the direct result of the utterance as the sole instrument of severance. This is, of course, the assessment not of adults but of men-children incapable of or unwilling to engage their brains sufficiently to determine with propriety the greater truth. It is very rare that speech causes any actual damage, but when it does it should be treated as carefully as any other cause of loss, whether civil or criminal. There are many gray-ish areas, but so what? Difficulty does not justify failure to do one's level best in resolving a situation.

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.

Sounds about right.

I will add this: if a stranger tells me that he is going to kill me, chances are good you he be shot in response. By way of his speech he hase announced an intention and I have RIGHTLY deemed it as serious and credible, all else equal. Have I violated his free speech right by drilling him full of holes? Hell no. I have reacted reasonably to a threat made to my person in defense of same.

WORDS ARE NOT INNOCUOUS. Never forget that. Most people are not even dimly aware of the position words occupy in our daily lives. It is a true horror that passes through our days with impunity and not so much as a first look.

 

[osan]

There are all sorts of damages that should be ignored by the government. When my GF cheated on me, she caused me great harm.

Hooboy... Um, no. She did not. You caused yourself the harm because you had a choice in how to regard the fact. Being a man about such things is screamingly difficult, but onus still rests with us to choose how we respond to such things.

Sorry, but this example fails all sorts of ways. Just pointing that bit out.

The only types of damage that the government should address are attacks to people's physical integrity, their physical belongings, and violations of contracts.

This is a child's answer, no offense. If I open my yap and the result is the destruction of your ability to make a living you had better be damned sure that you hold in your hands the basis for taking action against me. Of this there is no credible doubt.

 

[osan]

I will add this: the question of whether a reputation is property may be answered this way or that with equal validity depending on the premises upon which one labors. The question is itself wholly irrelevant. Whether a reputation is property has no bearing on practical matters. What counts is the result. If a causal link can be truthfully and correctly established between an utterance and some damage or other loss, the speech in question is NOT protected, liability is established, and one may then be held to account and make all good restitution.

If I murder a man, makes it any difference that I beat him with a club, stabbed him, used a garrot, shot or poisoned him? The result is the same.

So it may be said of loss and damage: does the instrumentality by which the loss was caused matter? If I take a bat and destroy your shiny new truck, is that any different than if I utter words about you that inflame others to such passion and ire that they do the job in my stead? Does it make any difference that I offer my friend money to do the job for me? Not a whit. My ACTION, and speechis indeed action no less than my fist sending someone's teeth on a journey through their digestive tract, can be shown to have caused a man's property to be destroyed.

Tell me, then, what is the practical difference with reputation? There is none as the results are exactly the same. Consider the example from the lynching days where someone says, "I done heard that bojeeve niggrah Harold Jackson done put his eyes all over Miss Lillywhite". This having been utterly false, yet its utterance having gotten up the ire of a mob and having further resulted in poor Harold's demise can in no credible way be looked upon as protected speech. The question of the ownership of reputation means NOTHING. Reputation, being a system of labeling, is FACT. It exists and it serves a role in social interactions. Ownership has no bearing on that role. Cause and effect, however, most definitely do.

 

[PierzStyx]

This is a good thread. Been a while since I've seen one on here.

Okay so here are my thoughts. If reputation only the thoughts in someone's head then there would be no rightful way to address them in a legal setting. But it is not. Reputation is an intangible but real exchange among humanity. It is in fact the entire basis for the free market. Positive and negative opinions given voice are what make up your reputation. Negative opinions shouldn't be regulated. But libel and slander go beyond the basis of opinion. Negative opinions are based in some real world experience or set of experiences. Libel and slander are unfactual, that is they are lies. This means they are at heart fraud, not against the producer only but also the consumer. They should be treated as such and be restrained.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

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

Weber's!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Libel and slander are unfactual, that is they are lies. This means they are at heart fraud, not against the producer only but also the consumer. They should be treated as such and be restrained.

I remember I was taught way back in libertarian school as a baby libertarian that libertarianism means "no force, no fraud". So I am certainly sympathetic to the idea that fraud should be outlawed. That is, violence is an acceptable response to fraud. Why? Because fraud is nothing more than a force substitute. Force doesn't have to be overt, to be force nevertheless. For instance:

• A thug robs the store through force, beating the clerk and taking the money;
• A stick-up man robs the store through threat of force, sticking his gun in the clerk's face;
• A shoplifter robs it through stealth, using no actual force;
• A fraudster robs it by opening a 90-day line of credit and then never paying his bill.

All of these have actually used force, in a manner of speaking. They have all forced the store into conducting a transaction with them which the store did not want to conduct: giving them something for nothing in return. So really, the libertarian idea can be reduced further from "no force, no fraud" to simply "no force," or put another way "no aggression".

So, now let's consider one more malfeasant and see if he fits in with our list of aggressors above:

• A libeler robs the store by starting a newspaper devoted to falsely claiming that its food is poison and its owner an adulterer, thus depriving it of business.

Is this guy different in any way from the first four? Let me first say that he is a bad guy. He is reprehensible. The people who think that libel and slander should be banned because it's reprehensible, I agree with you that it's reprehensible. This is very poor behavior indeed. So he has that in common with them.

But is he in any way different? Well, one difference we can see right off is that, unlike the first four, there is no property exiting the store and entering his grubby hands. So that's a difference. The real damages the store suffers in this case is loss of future income, income that it did not exactly "have coming to it," that is, it didn't own that income. And the property instead remains with the customers who chose not to do business with the store. These customers have a right to their property, no doubt about that, and the store never had a right to it. They are in no way robbing the store owner by ceasing to do business with him. Under libertarianism, they have freedom of association. So the actual real loss that occurs from libel cannot be considered a theft. If it were, the thieves would be the (former) customers, since they are the ones who have the property instead of the store, but they are not thieves, so there was no theft. The store was not robbed.

So put correctly, it becomes

• A libeler causes damages to the store by starting a newspaper devoted to falsely claiming that its food is poison and its owner an adulterer, thus depriving it of business.

So that is a major difference. In the first four examples, the store was robbed. In the last, it was not. There was no robbery of physical property. Also, there was no contract broken. So was there any aggression at all that took place in the last example?

I could be wrong, feel free to correct me, but thinking about it carefully, I can see no aggression. Bad behavior, yes. But no aggression.

 

[Pericles]

Looking at these two examples:

A fraudster robs it by opening a 90-day line of credit and then never paying his bill.

A libeler causes damages to the store by starting a newspaper devoted to falsely claiming that its food is poison and its owner an adulterer, thus depriving it of business.

How was force (aggression) used in the first example? The owner voluntarily extended credit with no coercion involved - yes?

The problem you face is in having to have aggression = force = wrong committed against the property of another.

The difference is that the damage done to the other person is easily quantifiable by a third party, and by the party suffering loss, while in the second example the damage done results in opportunity loss - or to put it in gun control perspective, how can you prove how many lives were saved by being armed? You can't produce a unquestionable number - but a probable range - which could be with a wide variance.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

How was force (aggression) used in the first example?

Because there was a contract broken.

The owner voluntarily extended credit with no coercion involved - yes?

Yes, everything was done voluntarily. Until the contract was broken. The fraudster failed to hold up his end of the bargain. He is thus an aggressor.

The problem you face is in having to have aggression = force = wrong committed against the property of another.

I would reject the formulation of "wrong committed". I think that a libeler has certainly committed a wrong against his target. The question is whether it is a specific type of wrong called aggression, because only against aggression is it justified to use force.

The difference is that the damage done to the other person is easily quantifiable by a third party, and by the party suffering loss, while in the second example the damage done results in opportunity loss - or to put it in gun control perspective, how can you prove how many lives were saved by being armed? You can't produce a unquestionable number - but a probable range - which could be with a wide variance.

Non-quantifiability is a difficulty, but not a show-stopping one. One can't exactly quantify psychic damages to the clerk who got beat up or threatened either, but you can try to come up with something reasonable (which will depend on the conventions of the society). The more -- and only -- important issue is that no actual aggression seems to have occurred. If actual aggression does occur, then even if it's hard to calculate how much restitution is owed, you do your best.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't think suing for damages based on actual damage to you from libelous acts is any more the government stepping in then suing someone for driving their car through your window and refusing to pay for it.

That's why I'm asking what is the window? That is, in this little analogy, what is the actual thing you own which was damaged?

We know the thing you own is not the facts you built up by your hard work. Short of time-travel machines, those cannot be changed.

We know the thing you own is not the literal definition of reputation: others' opinions of you. Because that would be outrageously anti-freedom.

We seem to have narrowed down that the activity you think violates the target's libertarian rights is having KRFDs propagated about him. That seems reasonable. But in the absence of any other reason to consider it a violation of a property right, the only possible way this activity (including KRFDs in one's communication) could be a violation of anyone's property rights is if someone has at least a partial property in the content of everyone's communications. That must be the window. That must be the property that is being damaged/sullied/misused against the wishes of its owner. The defamation target is a part owner of the content of everyone's communications. Otherwise, if not, they have no right whatsoever to control its contents -- unless, again, there arises some other reason to consider it a violation of a property right, such as their conversation being about ordering you killed, or ordering you pizzas (see my reply to AF).

So if you have that other reason, let me know. Or if you have some other proposal about what the window is, let me know. Because the important questions to answer, if I'm going to really get a clear understanding of your thoughts on this, are:

What is the window?
What is a reputation?

If you don't define "reputation," I don't see how we're ever going to come to an agreement, or even an understanding of each other, on whether or not a man has a property right in his reputation. I need a clear, solid, logical, unambiguous explanation of what you think reputation is if we're to proceed much further.

 

[osan]

Because fraud is nothing more than a force substitute.

A substitute for overt physical force. Fraud is just force of a subtler character.

So really, the libertarian idea can be reduced further from "no force, no fraud" to simply "no force," or put another way "no aggression".

I would rather characterize it at "no trespass" and "no violation". Aggression is acceptable in circumstances.

But is he in any way different? Well, one difference we can see right off is that, unlike the first four, there is no property exiting the store and entering his grubby hands. So that's a difference.

That difference is irrelevant, however. What is salient is the fact that the store owner is damaged by the libel. By the logic of your statement, Robinhood's reputed robbing of the "rich" is somehow fundamentally different from other robberies because the loot passes from the victim's hands into those of the "poor". I see some significant fail in that while it is a difference, it is not a relevant one in terms of the victim's point of view.

The real damages the store suffers in this case is loss of future income, income that it did not exactly "have coming to it," that is, it didn't own that income.

Agreed, but one can model likely losses through a little application of intelligence. If the store was taking in a steady $30K/month for, say, 5 years prior to the libel and those figures thereafter fell precipitously, all else equal the owner probably have a pretty good claim against the libeler.

And the property instead remains with the customers who chose not to do business with the store. These customers have a right to their property, no doubt about that, and the store never had a right to it. They are in no way robbing the store owner by ceasing to do business with him. Under libertarianism, they have freedom of association. So the actual real loss that occurs from libel cannot be considered a theft.

I do not think any lawyer worth a tenth of his guano would try to make that argument. The proper claim would likely be "loss" and "damages".

If it were, the thieves would be the (former) customers, since they are the ones who have the property instead of the store, but they are not thieves, so there was no theft. The store was not robbed.

So that is a major difference. In the first four examples, the store was robbed.

Major, yes, but still irrelevant.

In the last, it was not. There was no robbery of physical property. Also, there was no contract broken. So was there any aggression at all that took place in the last example?

You are too hung up on "aggression". It is a poor term, as commonly used in our circles. The NAP should be much better termed the Non-Violation Principle or the No-Trespass Principle.

I could be wrong, feel free to correct me, but thinking about it carefully, I can see no aggression.

Depends on the precise meaning of the term, but I can see your point. My point is that in such cases, aggression is a non-issue - it has no bearing on the situation, whereas trespass and violation most clearly do.

 

[osan]

Looking at these two examples:

A fraudster robs it by opening a 90-day line of credit and then never paying his bill.

A libeler causes damages to the store by starting a newspaper devoted to falsely claiming that its food is poison and its owner an adulterer, thus depriving it of business.

How was force (aggression) used in the first example? The owner voluntarily extended credit with no coercion involved - yes?

It is the force of deceit, the means being used by which to secure the consent and compliant action of one who would otherwise object and demur, were they to know the full measure of the truth.

The difference is that the damage done to the other person is easily quantifiable by a third party, and by the party suffering loss, while in the second example the damage done results in opportunity loss - or to put it in gun control perspective, how can you prove how many lives were saved by being armed? You can't produce a unquestionable number - but a probable range - which could be with a wide variance.

Exactly.

 

[osan]

Because there was a contract broken. Yes, everything was done voluntarily. Until the contract was broken. The fraudster failed to hold up his end of the bargain. He is thus an aggressor.

I wish I could jab you with a cattle prod until you stopped using "aggression" is so poorly considered a manner, which now holds far too many connotations of physicality. He is more the violator and trespasser.

 

[Wesker1982]

No, AINEC.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

A substitute for overt physical force. Fraud is just force of a subtler character.

Right.

I would rather characterize it at "no trespass" and "no violation". Aggression is acceptable in circumstances.

From your last few posts, I think you may be defining aggression somehow differently than me. What do you see as aggression, and what are some circumstances where it would be libertarianly acceptable to use it?

In the meantime, I'll just substitute "invasion" which means the same thing. Trespass means the same thing too in my mind, but you might be using it differently so I will hold off on using that to avoid undue confusion until I know what in the world you're talking about.

That difference is irrelevant, however. What is salient is the fact that the store owner is damaged by the libel. By the logic of your statement, Robinhood's reputed robbing of the "rich" is somehow fundamentally different from other robberies because the loot passes from the victim's hands into those of the "poor". I see some significant fail in that while it is a difference, it is not a relevant one in terms of the victim's point of view.

OK, first of all, just because an action causes "damage" does not qualify one to use force against the actor. Only retaliatory/defensive uses of force are justified, and a given use of force can only be retaliatory/defensive if there was an initial invasion. If I open a grocery store across the street from an existing grocery store, I most assuredly damage that store's business. But I do not invade its property. They can't use force to get "restitution" from me, because there's nothing to restitute. I never invaded their property.

Second of all, yes Robin Hood (and welfare-type distribution schemes, etc., etc.) just changes the robbery from a simple binary invasion to a triangular one: one person being robbed, another robbing, and another receiving the stolen property. Agreed.

Why my point was relevant is because we are ultimately trying to determine if an invasion of any kind took place. Candidate #1 for the type of invasion that may have occurred is robbery. So I go through step by step: did the libeler get the stolen goods? No. Did the (former) customers get the stolen goods? Well, yes and no: they got the goods, but these goods couldn't possibly be stolen, for they belonged rightfully to the customers all along. If they had received the goods from a Robin Hood, then it would be incumbent upon them to return them to the rightful owner, being in possession of stolen property. So since no one anywhere received any stolen goods at any time, that casts doubt on the idea that anything could have possibly been stolen.

Agreed, but one can model likely losses through a little application of intelligence. If the store was taking in a steady $30K/month for, say, 5 years prior to the libel and those figures thereafter fell precipitously, all else equal the owner probably have a pretty good claim against the libeler.

A claim for what? This guy didn't own his income. It could stop at any point for any number of reasons and no one would necessarily owe him a penny. He is only owed something if the reason for his loss was that he or his property was invaded.

I do not think any lawyer worth a tenth of his guano would try to make that argument. The proper claim would likely be "loss" and "damages".

Osan, I am obviously making arguments of a universal nature about the general nature of reality, ethics, and what is right and wrong as far as using force is concerned. I am not writing about the particularities of the United States legal system and offering lawyerly briefs for a court room. I understand and agree with you completely that yes, any good U.S. defamation lawyer is doubtless going to blow a lot of hot air involving the words "loss" and "damages".

You are too hung up on "aggression". It is a poor term, as commonly used in our circles. The NAP should be much better termed the Non-Violation Principle or the No-Trespass Principle.

My point is that in such cases, aggression is a non-issue - it has no bearing on the situation, whereas trespass and violation most clearly do.

It's not at all clear to me, since to me in this philosophical context all three are synonymous. You will just have to explain what you mean.

 

[Pericles]

I wish I could jab you with a cattle prod until you stopped using "aggression" is so poorly considered a manner, which now holds far too many connotations of physicality. He is more the violator and trespasser.

Ultimately this is why I seldom bother to discuss anything with a Rothbard adherent. Words get stretched way past the breaking point of meaning to arbitrary classification of circumstances.

Common definitions of aggression:

1. the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights.
2. any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment.
3. the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.
4. hostility toward or attack upon another, whether overt, verbal, or gestural.

The idea that breaking a contract is an aggression stretches to arbitrariness - because breaking a contract is aggression (taking meaning 2 to the loosest possible interpretation), but libel does not meet the test of meaning 4.



As it is almost impossible to agree on defining terms, one can't have a meaningful discussion.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Ultimately this is why I seldom bother to discuss anything with a Rothbard adherent. Words get stretched way past the breaking point of meaning to arbitrary classification of circumstances.
...
As it is almost impossible to agree on defining terms, one can't have a meaningful discussion.

It's very simple, really. And it's not just Rothbard. All libertarians I am aware of all use the word "aggression" in the same formulaic way: as the opposite of "defense". A use of force (or fraud) can either be "aggressive" or "defensive". If it's aggressive, it's illegitimate. If it's defensive, it's legitimate. What determines whether a use of force or fraud is aggressive is looking at the property lines. If I crossed over the fence line so to speak and projected my force or fraud onto someone else's rightful domain, then it is aggressive. If, on the other hand, they were trespassing on my turf then the force or fraud I use to right that situation is defensive.

This is, to me, the very picture of elegance and simplicity. There can hardly be any misunderstanding when words are used with such crispness and clarity.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It's very simple, really. And it's not just Rothbard. All libertarians I am aware of all use the word "aggression" in the same formulaic way: as the opposite of "defense". A use of force (or fraud) can either be "aggressive" or "defensive". If it's aggressive, it's illegitimate. If it's defensive, it's legitimate. What determines whether a use of force or fraud is aggressive is looking at the property lines. If I crossed over the fence line so to speak and projected my force or fraud onto someone else's rightful domain, then it is aggressive. If, on the other hand, they were trespassing on my turf then the force or fraud I use to right that situation is defensive.

This is, to me, the very picture of elegance and simplicity. There can hardly be any misunderstanding when words are used with such crispness and clarity.

+rep

 

[heavenlyboy34]

As it is almost impossible to agree on defining terms, one can't have a meaningful discussion.

Not really. Trying to pin down proper uses of various terms is common in any circle-and defining terms is critical for a productive discussion. (which is why Rothbard went to such lengths to describe the State in "Anatomy Of The State") Remember when the meaning of "is" was in question?

Have you ever signed a legal agreement? It's pretty common for lawyers to write in exactly what is meant by the various terms used in that particular agreement. Language is a slippery thing and semantic problems come up very often.

 

[osan]

From your last few posts, I think you may be defining aggression somehow differently than me. What do you see as aggression, and what are some circumstances where it would be libertarianly acceptable to use it?

We must get back to roots in order to be able to say. I am doing this off the top of my head, stream of consciousness style.

[h=2]ag·gress[/h] [uh-gres]

verb (used without object)
1.to commit the first act of hostility or offense; attack first.

2.to begin to quarrel.


verb (used with object)3.to behave aggressively toward; attack (often followed by upon ): wild animals aggressing their prey.



Origin:
1565–75; < Latin aggressus (past participle of aggredī to attack), equivalent to ag- ag- + gred- (see grade) + -tus past participle suffix

And from the Oxford etymological dictionary:

aggress (v.) "attack," 1714, back-formation from aggression, but used earlier with a sense of "approach" (1570s) and in this sense from French aggresser, from Late Latinaggressare, frequentative of Latin aggredi "to approach, attack."



Note the timbre of the word, how it carries with it the connotation of violence, whether overtly physical or verbal.

As I have maintained consistently, words have meanings and their original meanings should be adhered to in discussions such as this because using them as terms of art in these sorts of exchanges serves only to reduce clarity and obfuscate and thereby hinder understanding.

Therefore, to my way of seeing it, aggression is any act carrying with it outright violence, such as punching, grabbing, shoving etc., implied violence such as threats that would include, "I'm going to kick your ass" and "i'll kill you", or violent tone in speech. In the latter, one may adopt a very aggressive tone while never using a single word or phrase directly overtly suggesting violence. Imagine someone in your face, screaming "I'm going take you to court and sue you until you have nothing left." That is certainly aggressive - which is to say, suggestive of aggression.

Fraud, on the other hand, is not an overtly violent attack upon one by another. It is almost always of a subtle nature. The results can be devastating, as we all know, but they are still different from those of open violence and even violent tone. Aggression in the latter sense given in the previous paragraph can be used as an element in the commission of fraud and in this we see there are certainly gradations in certain, possibly uncommon, cases. But in general I believe it is to the greater advantage of understanding that we avoid the more artfully inclined usages of "aggression" as it tends to overly blur certain boundaries as here noted.

This is why I disagree with the term "non-aggression principle". There are, in fact, times where aggression is indeed justifiable such as when I preemptively attack a gang of hoods who have succeeded in communicating in subtle terms their intention to do me bodily harm. I am not obliged by any moral standard to stand by and wait for a fist to fly or a weapon to be produced before taking defensive action. Yet this obligation is very directly implied by the common formulations of the NAP. To state that such subtle and implied threats are aggression and that therefore I am responding to aggression is in my view sloppily simplistic, perhaps due to intellectual lassitude or an overbearing and thereby unsound drive to use fewer words and conceptual elements in a framework than are actually necessary for it to be complete and correct with rigor.

Given this, the non-aggression principle as commonly stated is fundamentally flawed in this way and we should kick it to the curb. The terms, "non-violation principle", or the "principle of non-trespass" do greatly superior service to the broader concept they are intended to convey because they do not speak falsely of the universal wrongness of "aggression", which we clearly see is not the case. They speak of the wrongness of violation or, equivalently, trespass. It is unacceptable to violate or trespass against another. It is at times acceptable to aggress against them, albeit in very tightly circumscribed cases.

In my opinion it is important to tune our words for precision because future generations may one day depend upon what we commit to paper today and there should be as little wiggle room as possible left for mis-interpretation.

In the meantime, I'll just substitute "invasion" which means the same thing. Trespass means the same thing too in my mind, but you might be using it differently so I will hold off on using that to avoid undue confusion until I know what in the world you're talking about.

Invasion, trespass, violation... yes these are all acceptable, though invasion is again a bit too narrow for my pleasure.

OK, first of all, just because an action causes "damage" does not qualify one to use force against the actor.

I may find this acceptable, depending upon what you mean in greater specificity. As stated, one is free to let his imagination run wildly.

Only retaliatory/defensive uses of force are justified, and a given use of force can only be retaliatory/defensive if there was an initial invasion.

Maybe. Once again you speak a bit too broadly for safety's sake. There are elements here that need to be factored in regarding specific circumstances. These include, but are not limited to proximity and temporal factors. For example, if I see you murder my child but cannot stop you, am I morally justified in hunting you at a later time and taking your life? I say most certainly yes. The "law" says otherwise. The "law" is an ass. I have NO problem whatsoever with the concept of vengeance, particularly in such extreme cases. It is eminently justifiable from a moral standpoint, and I will go so far as to assert that the prohibition against it in "law" fails miserably on its face due to the moral position underpinning it. That prohibition is based in nothing less than the utter disparagement of an individual's right to justly look after his own interests. The "law" says you have no such right, that it is only the purview of the "state" to dispense justice. This is a great and violently steaming pile of bullshit that has never once been validly demonstrated. This is because no such demonstration can be credibly made. All such so-called "arguments" have been based on pure assertion alone or those supported by savagely twisted reasoning that has remained unsuccessfully challenged for no other reason than that the courts who have pronounced it so have at their disposal the instruments of violence to effectively squelch any meaningful action in contravention of their crapulous declarations. That, my friend, has nothing to do with moral rectitude and everything with blind ignorance, intellectual lassitude, and good old fashioned corruption.

If I open a grocery store across the street from an existing grocery store, I most assuredly damage that store's business.

You're reaching here and it is not working. If you are engaging in non-criminal business transactions, any loss of business a competitor sustains because your products and services are preferred over theirs cannot in any reasonable and credible way be taken as damage. It is the simple result of someone offering superior choices. You competitor may well be free to change his business model in order to adapt to the new market reality that your store brought to the environment. They have a CHOICE, whereas if I crack you over the head with a bat and steal your wallet...

But I do not invade its property. They can't use force to get "restitution" from me, because there's nothing to restitute. I never invaded their property.

True, but you mix apples and oranges. Conducting superior business is not an aggression, invasion, violation, or trespass by even the wildest plausible stretches of the imagination. Shit changes and change cannot be avoided. Did the advent of automobiles violate the rights of those who brokered horses as means of transport? Not in any conceivable way. Gotta keep your ducks and your geese in separate pens, my friend.


Once again, words matter and they should be chosen with GREAT care in matter such as this. Making mountains of mole-hills and vise-versa is a very bad idea when philosophizing. People disregard the significance of this and it is precisely because of this that our world is in the shit-can and our nation is on the verge of failure, standing to take all hope of human liberty to the grave with it.

 

[osan]

It's very simple, really. And it's not just Rothbard. All libertarians I am aware of all use the word "aggression" in the same formulaic way: as the opposite of "defense". A use of force (or fraud) can either be "aggressive" or "defensive". If it's aggressive, it's illegitimate. If it's defensive, it's legitimate. What determines whether a use of force or fraud is aggressive is looking at the property lines. If I crossed over the fence line so to speak and projected my force or fraud onto someone else's rightful domain, then it is aggressive. If, on the other hand, they were trespassing on my turf then the force or fraud I use to right that situation is defensive.

This is, to me, the very picture of elegance and simplicity. There can hardly be any misunderstanding when words are used with such crispness and clarity.

Except that it is simplistic, and that is rarely a good thing. In this case, I submit that the result is the precise opposite of crispness and clarity. You are confusing those with artful elegance, which has its place, but not in subject areas where rigor is the paramount consideration. Screw elegance - I want precision, clarity, completeness, and correctness. Form must follow function, and by about 100 paces.