This is what a hypocrite looks like : Stefan Molyneux abusing DMCA to censor

[Christian Liberty]

See. For some the only real aggression in the world is taxes.

The NAP doesn't = "don't be a dick" like one would assume (its a great but misleading marketing term), it means don't violate certain types of property belonging to certain classes of being, with those further narrowly defined.

Anything out side of that is categorized as 'not aggression'. There is a special exception for fraud, which doesn't follow from the axioms, but I guess even Rothbardians get annoyed when the gold they receive is thinly plated tungsten.

Fraud would follow from title-transfer contracts, IMO.

I do think there's a difference depending on how the information is acquired. If I see you do something bad and you tell me "You didn't see nutttin okay?" And I reply "Buzz off. I'm squealing to the coppers unless you given me some cash." then I don't think that's aggression. However if I break into your house and steal damaging information about you (or break into your computer, or spy on your cell phone) then that is aggression. But is the aggression the blackmail or the way I acquired the information? Does it matter? And let's look at the Cosby case. For the sake of argument let's assume he didn't rape anyone but he did have sex with all of these women and he used his power and influence to pressure them into having sex with him. Not a crime, but still pretty scuzzy. It seems these women were paid off. If they had one by one said "You're scuzzy. I'm going to expose you unless you pay me to shut up." Is that aggression? Now I change the scenario from their rape claims because I think everyone can agree that if they were about to file rape charges (and they were actually raped) and Cosby said "Hold on. Why ruin your life and mine. I'll can just pay you what I'd have to pay my lawyer to defend me." then the women in that case would not be the aggressors.

In the "breaks into the house" scenario you have a clear case of aggression, breaking and entering, and stealing. If anything that proves my point. Nobody would say you have the right to do that, not me, not Walter Block, not anybody.

I agree there are things you can do that are scummy yet not explicitly aggressive. Those things shouldn't be crimes. I think there might be a place for social ostracism for those things though. Now, to be clear, if this was done for every petty thing some people didn't like, it would go tyrannical pretty quick. I'm not advocating that. But I could see people being like "you know? We understand that it technically wasn't violent when that guy threatened to fire any of his female employees that didn't sleep with him. But its still repulsive. We're going to handle it by boycotting him and telling all of his customers can do so." You can do the same thing with the whole "no blacks allowed sign." Or blackmail, provided no aggression is used to get the info.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

I've listened to SM very little..that very little was disappointing..windbaggish...flailing at the leave$, leaving the hideous root$ practically untouched...

...i would enjoy listening to a talk-radio show where intelligent, concise callers DOMINATED the show...instead of the current stinking Republican Party Inc. dominated radio program$...whereby the gist of their whole stinking show could be uttered by a stinking parrot trained to squawk some variant of 'Republican good, Democrat bad'...'Democrat bad, Republican not as bad'..etc. CONSTANT gd drivel..

...correct me if i'm wrong, but other than maybe 'liberal democrat' Allan ?Colmes there is no 'political' radio host who encourages ANY/ALL/LOTS of DISSENTING callers..Republicans are particularly chicken-$hits..slamming down, ridiculing, etc., intelligent dissenters and encouraging the gd fool Republican party cheerleading dullards..

...In 'my' 'market' political 'talk' radio is nothing more or less than a 168 hr/week Republican Party Inc. advertisement selling their stinking, snake-oil Republican partier$.....and now the stinking Democrats have their hideous variant...

 

[Weston White]

I am going out of a limb to say that I don't understand why blackmailing should be illegal. I have something embarrassing on you that if made public will ruin you, I come to you and ask for a monetary payment to destroy/conceal said evidence and you can either agree to my offer or tell me off. How exactly is that aggression on anybody. Is it sorta like the whole deal with prostitution where the exchange of money makes it a crime? I really don't think it should be a crime in this society or a free one.

Also the fact that someone is emotionally harmed is not a sign of aggression. Some people are emotionally harmed by seeing 2 guys make out. Should that also be a crime? This is that line of thinking that causes legislators to criminalize revenge porn.

Blackmail is relational to extortion (the latter applying namely to public employees or those posing as employees of the government, and corporations), blackmail is a lesser method of robbery, the former pertaining to coercion by information, knowledge, or evidence and the latter coercion by violence, harm, or force. Blackmail is not an act of aggression (e.g., duress), it is a coercive act (e.g., undue influence), unlike battery, kidnapping, rape, or robbery, which are.

An act of prostitution involves a pure voluntary exchange amongst consenting adults, whereas blackmail does not. However, it is not the mere exchange of money that makes prostitution a crime—it is the explicit exchange of money for the performance of sexual acts that makes it so.

A common example of blackmail is demanding a finder’s fee in exchange for the return of missing or stolen property, such as a lost pet, cell-phone, wallet, or purse. Hence, to blackmail another establishes an approximate causation to ‘injure’ another, while merely airing their dirty laundry (presuming all is factually true) does not.

In criminal law it is the act itself that dedicates wrongfulness not the victim’s perception of right from wrong or their private feelings, the crime is held against the public not the victim.

Two males being affectionate (e.g., kissing or caressing) in public is not really civilly actionable as an injury unto another, being that those males are held to no other legal duty or performance than heterosexuals engaging in similar acts while in public would otherwise have been.

Furthermore, the destruction or concealing of evidence may result in obstruction of justice or similar crimes.

Revenge porn is intended to harass, demoralize, or expose the victim, such being the end result and motivation of either blackmail or extortion.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Using the definitions Block uses, which may not be correct but they've been what I've been going with:

Extortion = threatening to do something unlawful (aggressive) unless paid.

Blackmail = threatening to do something lawful (non-aggressive) unless paid.

So, if I told you I'd tell everyone in a very socially conservative community that you slept around in high school unless you paid me money, that would be legitimate (Probably not moral, but not aggression). If I told you I'd kill you unless you paid me money, that would be extortion and aggressive.

 

[William Tell]

Using the definitions Block uses, which may not be correct but they've been what I've been going with:

Extortion = threatening to do something unlawful (aggressive) unless paid.

Blackmail = threatening to do something lawful (non-aggressive) unless paid.

So, if I told you I'd tell everyone in a very socially conservative community that you slept around in high school unless you paid me money, that would be legitimate (Probably not moral, but not aggression). If I told you I'd kill you unless you paid me money, that would be extortion and aggressive.

So using that reasoning, would you consider extortion a crime, or a threat to commit a crime? I'm kind of fuzzy as to where ancaps stand on threats to commit crimes, and whether they consider such threats criminal.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

We already established he's a hypocrite who won't be consistent,...

All humans are inconsistent. And there is no "we." Neg rep for your continued lying on here.

Can someone else give please this asswipe a neg rep for also beating a dead horse?

It's funny...

You know what's even funnier? See you losing another green bar and eventually going to red.

LOL.

I know, right?

 

[PRB]

All humans are inconsistent.

Some are worse than others.

And there is no "we." Neg rep for your continued lying on here.

Ask JulieSwin if there's a we here, I think she/he would agree with me.

Can someone else give please this asswipe a neg rep for also beating a dead horse?







You know what's even funnier? See you losing another green bar and eventually going to red.





I know, right?

umadbro

 

[PRB]

So using that reasoning, would you consider extortion a crime, or a threat to commit a crime? I'm kind of fuzzy as to where ancaps stand on threats to commit crimes, and whether they consider such threats criminal.

Threats and extortions are not per se crimes, because no harm is done until harm is done. No harm no victim no crime. If you disagree, you're a pre-crimer and you'd be just as bad as people who think drunk drivers should be arrested before they've harmed anybody. You can't have it both ways or cherry pick, either you believe a crime requires physical harm, or you believe anything can be an arrestable crime. Obviously you're not a fascist who thinks anything can be a crime arbitrarily decided by the state, therefore the only logical and consistent position is to believe that only physical harm can be counted as a crime.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Some are worse than others.

Nothing worse than a lib who won't personally give, but demand that others give.

Ask JulieSwin if there's a we here, I think she/he would agree with me.

No, that member is liberty minded. You are an extreme lib.

umadbro

Nah, just annoying you more. Didn't you say I annoyed you?

 

[jmdrake]

All humans are inconsistent. And there is no "we." Neg rep for your continued lying on here.

Can someone else give please this asswipe a neg rep for also beating a dead horse?

No. But I'll give him a plus rep to offset your neg rep. It's one thing to be inconsistent. It's another thing to make a life out of pointing out any real or perceived inconsistency in others and then turn around and be inconsistent. That's what Stefan Moleneaux does. And for him to take on YouTube channels that criticism him is just petty.

 

[acptulsa]

Threats and extortions are not per se crimes, because no harm is done until harm is done. No harm no victim no crime. If you disagree, you're a pre-crimer and you'd be just as bad as people who think drunk drivers should be arrested before they've harmed anybody. You can't have it both ways or cherry pick, either you believe a crime requires physical harm, or you believe anything can be an arrestable crime.

What is the name of this game? You clearly believe in gray areas, and every thread you start is either an attempt at getting a 'gotcha' moment by providing half the facts, or an exploration of some gray area or another. But you then invariably argue that gray areas don't exist. It's a silly brand of trolling.

So, showing someone something that could damage their reputation and demanding money for it is a 'pre-crime'? It isn't extortion, it's just the foreplay to extortion? And I guess a rapist isn't a rapist when he forces foreplay on someone, but only becomes a rapist when he gets around to penetrating his victim?

No. But thanks for playing. And, no, physical harm is not a prerequisite for an act to be considered criminal under the non-aggression principle. Harm is, yes, but it doesn't have to be physical. Which is, of course, the fallacy you predicated this bit of trollery on, so you obviously won't be bumping this thread any more.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No. But I'll give him a plus rep to offset your neg rep.

I just gave him another neg rep to offset you plus rep.

That's what Stefan Moleneaux does.

Is this Stefan fellow a constant liar, like PRB? Which is worse, inconsistency or lying?

 

[Ender]

LOL. I love how NAP advocates have to stretch the definition of aggression to include blackmail, defamation and fraud. Next you'll tell us smiling is aggression just so you can justify punching a person in return.

NAP is a nonsensical argument because at the end of the paragraph, it's basically "aggression is what I call aggression and/or unjustified force" totally circular.

It's funny how one can call defamation "destroying" but I bet the same person like you will say piracy is not "destroying" a person's profits, because in your mind, you arbitrarily decided what IS or ISN'T legitimately information one can protect. To say defamation is an actionable tort or crime assumes that free speech should be limited to truth and/or a person is obligated to maintain another person's reputation and public image. No such obligation seems to exist when we talk about whether the average consumer needs to respect the privilege of an artworks' creator to only distribute his work, copies of it, or derivatives of it as he sees fit for the price he names.

If you can justify copyright infringement on the grounds that "I never agreed to uphold copyright" or "I never recognize you hold copyright", you can surely say the same about reputation and defamation. Why should I not be allowed to lie about you for money or fun?

I love how you non-liberty people try to equate damaging others as part of your personal freedom.

Blackmail is a form of aggression- it can involve things that are not unlawful but humiliating or something about a person's loved one etc. etc. etc. Hurting others for a buck is NOT liberty, it is ego displacement.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What is the name of this game?

The name of his game is money. I guarantee you that this knucklehead and his ilk like Zip get paid and/or work for an organization. No one spends this amount of time of time on a board doing this type of unconventional trolling.

I am just going to neg rep them continually until every new member and casual member sees their red bar and knows it automatically.

 

[dannno]

Except the private information he was complaining about was already available to the public through his show.

Incorrect....:

Bored at work again so I had a 5 min. of my time to look at this.
1. Stefans wife is a psychologist and she was on Stefans show. People called in and she talked to them.
2. Some sick fuck used information in that conversation to track and stalk listeners that asked advice from psychologist (Stefans wife). They also used pictures/calls and videos of other people who called Stefans show to harass and stalk them online.
3. Listeners of Stefans show called in and informed Stefan that they were stalked and harassed and asked him to remove that content.
3. Stefans wife gets reprimanded and license suspended.
https://members.cpo.on.ca/public_register/show/19048?section=discipline#ui-tabs-12
4. Stefan takes only steps that government allows him to control damage created by sick stalking fucks.

"If you attack listeners you dont get to use any of our materials. Thats the line"- Stefan M. Show.

 

[PRB]

Nothing worse than a lib who won't personally give, but demand that others give.

No, that member is liberty minded. You are an extreme lib.

Nah, just annoying you more. Didn't you say I annoyed you?

I am not a liberal, extreme or otherwise. I don't demand anybody give, when did I ever?

Go ahead, ask her/him.

Yes, I might've said you annoyed me, if you continue to do so and admit it, you're the troll, not me.

 

[PRB]

No. But I'll give him a plus rep to offset your neg rep. It's one thing to be inconsistent. It's another thing to make a life out of pointing out any real or perceived inconsistency in others and then turn around and be inconsistent. That's what Stefan Moleneaux does. And for him to take on YouTube channels that criticism him is just petty.

Thank you!

Yes, I agree nobody is perfect, but there's a difference between being a liar and an imperfect person, and another thing to claim to be better and make a living off criticizing others for being wrong or inconsistent.

 

[PRB]

I love how you non-liberty people try to equate damaging others as part of your personal freedom.

Prove I am not liberty minded. And you have not established that's "damaging" or at least, damage you're entitled to protection against.

Blackmail is a form of aggression- it can involve things that are not unlawful but humiliating or something about a person's loved one etc. etc. etc. Hurting others for a buck is NOT liberty, it is ego displacement.

Do you have a right to not be humiliated? Ego displacement is not the opposite of liberty.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Go ahead, ask her/him.

Ask him what? I said he's liberty minded and you are a lib.

Yes, I might've said you annoyed me, if you continue to do so and admit it, you're the troll, not me.

Just trolling the troll. What's the matter--can't take it?

Prove I am not liberty minded.

Already been done countless times. Neg rep.

 

[PRB]

What is the name of this game? You clearly believe in gray areas, and every thread you start is either an attempt at getting a 'gotcha' moment by providing half the facts, or an exploration of some gray area or another. But you then invariably argue that gray areas don't exist. It's a silly brand of trolling.

Cite me where I said I believe in gray areas? Or specifically, when it comes to whether lack of physical harm can be an actionable tort or arrestable crime.

So, showing someone something that could damage their reputation and demanding money for it is a 'pre-crime'?

Reputation is not physical, just like information is not physical. Damage to reputation is not measurable scientifically or materially. That's aside from the fact that damage of reputation, if it can be proved at all, is not physical damage to a person's person or property.

So yes, unless and until you prove it's a crime, it's a pre-crime or non-crime.

It isn't extortion, it's just the foreplay to extortion? And I guess a rapist isn't a rapist when he forces foreplay on someone, but only becomes a rapist when he gets around to penetrating his victim?

I never said extortion is a crime either. Rapist is not a rapist if he's forcing foreplay, forcing foreplay is sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual harassment, but not rape until there's penetration. Even statutory rape requires penetration, otherwise it's all other kinds of crimes, but not rape.

No. But thanks for playing. And, no, physical harm is not a prerequisite for an act to be considered criminal under the non-aggression principle. Harm is, yes, but it doesn't have to be physical.

How can you prove something that's not physical? Anybody can lie about anything.