RoR: Forum

Thanks. Rand uses the term force most often because it is concrete, vivid, and accounts for the most obvious cases of crime. But how are you going to define force? Obviously she doesn't just mean the Newtonian definition - F=m(dv/dt) - that force is the acceleration of mass.

For example lets say you see a man and a woman walking down the street and the man pushes the woman into a bush. You will have a different interpretation of his actions based upon whether he cursed at her first, or if an out of control car was barreling towards her. Paradoxically, you cannot just define force as the use of force.

The problem becomes slightly more acute when you look at fraud. I am not sure where I read her address the issue, but somewhere Rand says that fraud is wrong because it results in possession without consent, which results to the same moral situation as theft; you have to resort to the use of force to return the object which was taken without consent.

Obviously the real issue here is the violation of informed consent. Fraud is just as much a violation of the rights of men to interact on the basis of informed consent as is the use of violence. In this sense defamation becomes a type of fraud in the broad moral sense. Standard fraud amounts to false advertising or violation of an explicit or implied contract. Libel is different because it involves a third party, and it may not involve monetary a monetary incentive, but not always. A person could libel someone out of pure malice. The libeler gets no concrete reward, just satisfaction of his perverse desire to inflict harm.

In many cases libelous remarks are criminal or actionable based on other grounds. But libel allows one to sue for personal damages as separate from the technicalities of other crimes. For instance, the woman who made up the false National Guard records that Dan Rather used to libel George Bush was also guilty of forgery and probably several federal crimes. Those crimes may have been punishable by jail time. For Bush to recover monetary damages, had he wished to do so, libel law would have been relevant.

And what about someone who falsely accuses another person of sexual molestation? That sort of thing can be done without any expectation of gain by the accuser and without any other crime being committed. The damages are real and significant. The fact that the libeler does not gain monetarily makes his action no less criminal than if a thief destroys a priceless object he meant to benefit from during the commission of the crime. Each has violated the right of an owner to enjoy his property without the owner's consent.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 10/24, 5:30pm)

Post 41

Saturday, October 24, 2009 - 3:40pm

Objectivism does not embrace the NIOF principle as the basis for its politics. Let me repeat, Objectivism does not embrace the NIOF principle as the basis for its politics. Objectivism does not reject force as an axiom. Objectivism rejects the use of force and fraud because they violate man's need to use his mind as his means of survival. The use of force is wrong not because of its physical nature, but because it violates the human mind's need to act on a reasoned choice, on what is conventionally called informed consent. Force in the sense of coercion is a moral, not a physical concept. The use of force and the use of fraud are both violations of informed consent.

Did Ayn Rand reject the NIOF princple? If so, can I have a link or a quote?

Objectivism does not reject force as an axiom.

NIOF does not mean the "rejection of force". NIOF means the rejection of the INITIATION of force.

Objectivism rejects the use of force and fraud because they violate man's need to use his mind as his means of survival. The use of force is wrong not because of its physical nature, but because it violates the human mind's need to act on a reasoned choice, on what is conventionally called informed consent.

This statement is in line with what the NIOF principle means.

To return to the example of the shopkeeper deprived of customers through libel or through physical interference, in either case the rights violation is that I and my customers have been denied the right to interact on the terms of informed consent.

If some third party who bears you a grudge tells a lie (and in the case of the Limbaugh slur, a transparently obvious and easily disproved lie), and both you and the party that are considering entering into a contractual agreement see through the lie, how does that deny either party the ability to "interact on the terms of informed consent"? Both parties still know what the truth is, and neither one has lied to the other.

I disagree with the notion that if anyone tells a lie, that this necessarily deprives me of the ability to act under informed consent, and that any form of lying whatsoever is a rights violation. This assumes that I am incapable of seeing through lies, of "using my mind as a means of survival".

People lie all the time, in a stunning array of lies: harmless white lies ("Oh, no, honey, that dress doesn't make your butt look big at all."), lies of omission, lies of commission, half-truths, and so on. Someone with a pathological need to tell the absolute truth, and every bit of the truth, in every situation whatsoever will quickly become a social pariah.

Don't believe me? Try it. Try to go an entire week -- no, an entire day -- telling everyone you meet exactly what is on your mind, without any attempt to spare their feelings.

Perhaps this is one example where Objectivism and the rest of libertarianism (and yes, I'm saying Objectivism is a subset of libertarianism) part company, the notion that exercising one's First Amendment rights (as originally written, NOT as gutted by subsequent SCOTUS and Congressional actions) is a rights violation, in the absence of contractual fraud.

Injuring one's tender feelings, or one's notion of self, or other people's notion of who you are (your "reputation"), are not a rights violation unless coupled with an attempt to defraud you by leading you to enter into a contract without informed consent.

Post 42

Saturday, October 24, 2009 - 4:02pm

As if any kind of force is immoral, and as if property is only a physical object you can hold in your hand. Both of those views only seek to destroy man's ability to flourish.

If these were characterized as part of the NIOF principle, they would be strawman arguments. Using force to defend oneself against another's initiation of force is not immoral under this principle, and property is not defined as strictly limited to physical objects you can hold in your hand.

But, the thoughts I hold about others are MY property, not theirs, under the principle of self-ownership. And since reputation is the aggregation of such views of others regarding the person in question, the ownership of a reputation lies scattered among the minds that own those thoughts.

To give a more concrete example: at least one person who posts here has followed up articles with an advertisement of their intellectual property, a book, that they are offering to sell. I have views about the author of those articles (highly favorable ones, I might add). Those thoughts I hold of him compose a tiny portion of his reputation, which is scattered among the minds of many other people.

I own these thoughts of this author, not him. His reputation influences the possibility that I might buy his book.

Now, if someone else launches a vicious false attack on this person's character or mental acuity, well, I will likely see through that attack. The attack will backfire and will damage the reputation of the attacker in my thoughts, not the reputation of the person attacked.

And, while the attack might sway some gullible people to not buy his book, thus potentially affecting the sales of his book and thus his livelihood, it should not be viewed as a rights violation in the absence of an attempt at fraud.

You don't have the right to never be insulted or never have false things said about you. Making that into a right would gut your First Amendment rights to free speech, and would play into the hands of nanny-statist leftists, who dream of making that into a legally enforceable right, and who have to some extent already succeeded.

What you should have is the right to not be defrauded by someone lying to you in the course of trying to get you to enter into a contract with them without informed consent. That right is consistent with the First Amendment.

Post 43

Saturday, October 24, 2009 - 4:56pm

Jim, have you considered Dissent as the proper place for your posts?

Rand never explicitly mentions the NIoF axiom, Jim. It is a mantra of the anarchists. See The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism by Walter Block at LewRockwell.com. Rand does call libertarians and anarchists "plagiarists" and "scum." I'll let you figure out why. (ARA, p 72-75)

Jim, I know it's tough to understand negative sentences with qualifying phrases, but it is true that Objectivism does not reject force as an axiom. Neither does it reject the initiation of force as an axiom. I am not going to explain that one any further, you will just have to figure it out.

The remainder of your post is a laughable a farrago of straw men and non sequiturs. If you want to insist that I am arguing that it should be illegal to lie, or that libel is about someone's hurt feelings, feel free.

I don't think its accurate for you to call yourself an Objectivist, or for you to make your assertions as if they were consistent with Objectivism.

Post 44

Saturday, October 24, 2009 - 7:52pm

You obviously do not remember your Galt very well -

"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may INITIATE - do you hear me? no man may START - the use of physical force against others..." [pg 1023 in centennial ed]

Post 45

Saturday, October 24, 2009 - 8:12pm

Duh, and?

Sunday, October 25, 2009 - 1:16am

Hi Ted, obviously one should define force, and not just as some kind of Newtonian law, but as something that is relevant to the context of a philosophy for man to live on this planet. And force for it to have any kind of meaning for this context requires a moral distinction between its initiation and its use as retaliation. So it's not just any kind of "force", but how it is used by man against another man. Rand came up with this distinction of initiation vs retaliation not arbitrarily but because she deemed it necessary in protecting a particular standard of value, specifically life, and not just any kind of life, but a flourishing eudemonic one. So once we understand that's the standard for this morality, it becomes obvious things like libel/slander, not recognizing intellectual property, etc. serves to destroy this particular value of living a flourishing life. The principle is based on protecting a value, it is not derived for its own sake. If we understand why we have the principle, we can recognize activities like libel/slander are anti-life actions. But I believe Rand considered things like fraud, unilateral breach of contract, extortion, threats of assault, as initiations of force by indirect means. Rands say in the Virtue of Selfishness:

"A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right�i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner�s consent, under false pretenses or false promises. Extortion is another variant of an indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values, not in exchange for values, but by the threat of force, violence or injury." The Nature of Government,� The Virtue of Selfishness, page 111.

As far Jim's notion that libel and slander are forms of free speech, it's a symptom of looking at a principle for its own sake, and not for why the principle was established in the first place. It's intrincism, looking at any and all kinds of speech as if they are all forms of free speech, without asking the question for what purpose should one have the freedom to speak? Once the question is answered, it becomes apparent what constitutes 'free speech' and what doesn't. It's the same for an anarchist that thinks the freedom of movement or action is a principle devoid of any value for which it serves, so to the anarchist, freedom of action means rape, murder, the destruction of property, etc because there is no value attached to the principle, it's just a principle for its own sake. Similarly Jim probably doesn't have an understanding of why we come up with ideas like the freedom of speech. The principle of free speech was formed to make it possible for someone to live a flourishing life, the right to free speech does not exist for its own sake, but for the sake of protecting a value, specifically life. So when speech destroys life, to Jim it doesn't matter, because it's speech, and you can use it, and that's all that's important, the act of using speech, any and all kinds, i.e. intrincism. Scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, who cares if people are trampled to death trying to flee that theater, they were gullible to believe there was a fire. Jim in essence doesn't grasp any connection between these principles and the values to which they are meant to serve.
(Edited by John Armaos on 10/25, 1:20am)

Post 47

Sunday, October 25, 2009 - 1:31am

Now, if someone else launches a vicious false attack on this person's character or mental acuity, well, I will likely see through that attack.

As a consumer, why would you bother investigating the validity of the accusation? Or as an employer, why bother investigating the validity of an attack on one of your prospective employees looking for a job interview? You know that sometimes these accusations are true, but sometimes they are false, doing the research to find out requires expending resources. However choosing a different company to do business with, or choosing a different applicant, requires no time or resources. So it's cheaper just to pass over the accused. It's a form of what economists call statistical discrimination.

(Edited by John Armaos on 10/25, 9:00am)

Post 48

Monday, November 2, 2009 - 9:11am

John, I think we have to make a distinction between the state and individuals as actors. The government is defined by Rand as the entity which has a monopoly over the use of force in an area. Hence it is perfectly reasonable to say immediately that the state, which has a political monopoly on force, may never initiate it.

But how does this apply to crime by individuals? Consider the example of two people who walk in to a store. One is a legitimate customer. He picks up an item, carries it to the counter, hands cash to the clerk, and walks out the door carrying his purchase. The second, a shoplifter, does all the same things, except that he skips making the payment. Indeed, he may pay for some purchases, so he may go to the counter. He simply omits payment for the stolen item.

Is the distinction here one of "force"? The difference is not the shoplifter has added on an extra dimension of violence. He has actually done less physically than the legitimate customer. Obviously the crime consists in the violation of consent, not in the use of physical violence. One may use violence to violate consent, or one may use falsehood, or simple inadversion. What is essential is the deprivation of a person's property against his will.

Wrongdoing by the government normally comes about by the use or threat of violence, which is inherent in all its actions. Fraud and defamation are not the usual methods of violating a persons rights in the liberal democracies of the West. Although, with such power grabs as the Obama administration's takeover of the auto industry and the shutdown of dealerships run by businessmen who did not sufficiently contribute to past democratic political campaigns, we can see that the left in American has learned how to apply the dishonest tactics of the Nazis and the Soviets. When the government does commit fraud or defamation, it acts in concert with its coercive power simply by default if not actively.

When private actors defraud or defame someone they usually do so without violence. Hence most fraud and most defamation litigation is civil rather than criminal. But even if the actions of private wrongdoers are done without guns, and may be improper just as much for what is not done as for what is done, the fact remains that harm is accomplished through the violation of informed consent. The abuse of consent, whether violent or not, is the essence of the violation of rights.

Post 49

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 3:11pm

Similarly Jim probably doesn't have an understanding of why we come up with ideas like the freedom of speech. The principle of free speech was formed to make it possible for someone to live a flourishing life, the right to free speech does not exist for its own sake, but for the sake of protecting a value, specifically life. So when speech destroys life, to Jim it doesn't matter

So many strawmen to burn, John, so little time ...

Read my posts again, John, and show me where I ever once said it was OK for speech to destroy life. What I said is that we have a difference of opinion on whether the thoughts in my head about others belong to me, or to people who have sometimes spent a considerable sum of money to try to influence those thoughts, and thus whose claim those thoughts as property.

My opinion is that under the principle of self-ownership, every one of my thoughts belong to me, no matter how much time, effort, or money someone else has spent trying to shape those thoughts. Those thoughts are MY property.

You, on the other hand, appear to hold the opinion that since one's income may derive, in whole or in part, from the reputation that others hold about them, that you thus hold some property rights to the thoughts of others, and can sue or otherwise punish someone who tries to change those thoughts of others in a manner that harms your self-interest.

Is this a fair and accurate restating of your views? Do you really hold that other people's thoughts can belong to you under some circumstances? Do you not see the slippery slope that underlies this attempt to appropriate the thoughts (and yes, thus appropriate a part of the life) of others?

Post 50

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 3:55pm

Jim:

Read my posts again, John, and show me where I ever once said it was OK for speech to destroy life.

You don't have to have said that explicitly Jim for that to be the logical conclusion of your arguments. It's obvious that you do think it's OK for speech to destroy life, since you believe spreading lies about someone and ruining his reputation is free speech. Your notion of free speech is something that is just any kind of speech regardless of its consequences, a notion of intrinsicism, and something that does not require any further validation and is simply a priori, rather than free speech as a means to serve any particular value such as life and the pursuit of happiness. To you free speech is justified in the same manner as a mystic justifies religion, "because it is so". Claiming libel and slander is free speech undermines these very values of life and the pursuit of happiness that the principle of free speech should be based upon.

My opinion is that under the principle of self-ownership, every one of my thoughts belong to me, no matter how much time, effort, or money someone else has spent trying to shape those thoughts. Those thoughts are MY property.

Thoughts or speech? Those are not the same words. Speech is an action, something that has consequences, thoughts by itself do not necessarily require that they result in action that can effect the lives of others. So it's wrong to reduce this contention to "owning one's thoughts" since a thought sans action doesn't have the possibility of inflicting any consequence on the lives of others. Again, you seem to think the freedom of action should entail the destruction of other people's property, but that makes no sense, rights for them to be coherent moral principles should not be in conflict with one another.

(Edited by John Armaos on 11/11, 4:35pm)

Post 51

Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 12:17pm

A lucrative business regulating gossip. It is ridiculous to assume one can throw every doom sayer in prison because they are hindering your pursuit of happiness. Besides chasing them around only wastes time and discredits oneself.

Post 52

Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 4:47pm

I don't know what you mean by regulating gossip. There is no such thing as regulations for gossip, which implies the government places restrictions on the 'market of gossip' with a regulatory agency imposing fines.

But better still, you fail to see how it would be a lucrative business to destroy people's lives with lies?

"It is ridiculous to assume one can throw every doom sayer in prison because they are hindering your pursuit of happiness."

This is an equivocation, it is not "doom sayers" that are violating someone's rights. It is slander or libel, which are defined as malicious lies aimed at destroying someone's reputation, specifically a reputation that is dependent upon for trade. But even if you replaced the term "doom sayer" with the word "slanderer" it would still be a fallacious argument. Just replace the word with "thief" and re-read your sentence and tell me if your argument is still valid.

"Besides chasing them around only wastes time and discredits oneself."

If by "them" you mean people that lie about a business or person that destroys their reputation, Wendy's would disagree with you.

(Edited by John Armaos on 11/12, 4:59pm)

Post 53

Saturday, November 14, 2009 - 10:53am