Vegetarian Discussion: The Moral Status Of Defamation And Blackmail, And Its Appropriate Legal Status In A Libertarian Society

The Moral Status Of Defamation And Blackmail, And Its Appropriate Legal Status In A Libertarian Society
Posts: 8

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Rupert
2008-12-11 23:58:25 EST
Murray Rothbard, a founding father of anarcho-capitalism, contends
that blackmail ought not to be illegal in a free society. If you
possess information about someone else then it is within your rights
to reveal it to others, and to charge a fee for not doing so, or to
set a condition on your not doing so.

Blackmailing someone with some information you possess about them
causes no more harm to them than the simple act of revealing the
information. By blackmailing them rather than simply revealing the
information, you are giving them more choices, and they will choose
the best one for them as a rational agent, so you are not making them
any worse off than you would be by simply revealing the information.
If revealing the information is morally acceptable and ought to be
legally permitted, then blackmailing them with the same information is
morally acceptable and ought to be legally permitted, unless there is
a positive moral duty, or ought to be a legal obligation, to disclose
the information.

Derek calls Pearl a "dirty blackmailer" as if blackmail were an
unequivocal evil. I don't know what Derek thinks about Henry Spira. I
myself think that he achieved some worthwhile things, such as getting
Avon and Revlon to stop torturing millions of rabbits each year and
making them blind. He had some other worthwhile achievements as well.
However, it's probably fair to say that his modus operandi was
blackmail. Probably not legally so, otherwise someone would have taken
him to court, but he was threatening to reveal information about
people unless they complied with his demands.

It's not clear whether there ought to be any defamation law in a
libertarian society. Rudy seems to think there should be, yet he and
Derek certainly constantly make defamatory and false statements about
me and many others. (Contrary to the terms of their ISP, by the way.
*That* ought to give pause to the conscience of a good libertarian.
Are you a man who honours his contracts, Rudy?)

BTW a friend of mine M is facing court proceedings over having taken
some video footage in a piggery. The owner of the piggery is trying to
argue that his intent was to defame him. He could be up for quite a
lot of money if he loses.

Anyway.

You're not really in a position to criticise anyone for blackmail,
Derek or Rudy, given your track record of behaviour.

Rudy Canoza
2008-12-12 00:55:12 EST
Rupert wrote:
> Murray Rothbard, a founding father of anarcho-capitalism,

Rothbard ended up a "paleo-conservative".

Rupert
2008-12-12 01:31:05 EST
On Dec 12, 1:55 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > Murray Rothbard, a founding father of anarcho-capitalism,
>
> Rothbard ended up a "paleo-conservative".

I know. Rothbard went through many weird transformations.

Rudy Canoza
2008-12-12 02:31:02 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 12, 1:55 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> Murray Rothbard, a founding father of anarcho-capitalism,
>> Rothbard ended up a "paleo-conservative".
>
> I know. Rothbard went through many weird transformations.

So, calling him an "anarcho"-anything is bizarre.

Rupert
2008-12-12 02:41:31 EST
On Dec 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 1:55 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> Murray Rothbard, a founding father of anarcho-capitalism,
> >> Rothbard ended up a "paleo-conservative".
>
> > I know. Rothbard went through many weird transformations.
>
> So, calling him an "anarcho"-anything is bizarre.

I correctly said that he was a founding father of anarcho-capitalism.
What's your problem, weirdo?

Rudy Canoza
2008-12-12 02:43:54 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Dec 12, 1:55 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> Murray Rothbard, a founding father of anarcho-capitalism,
>>>> Rothbard ended up a "paleo-conservative".
>>> I know. Rothbard went through many weird transformations.
>> So, calling him an "anarcho"-anything is bizarre.
>
> I correctly said that he was a founding father of anarcho-capitalism.

You were trying to capture a certain cachet for yourself with that
comment. In the end, it really isn't accurate.

Rupert
2008-12-12 03:30:51 EST
On Dec 12, 3:43 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Dec 12, 1:55 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> Murray Rothbard, a founding father of anarcho-capitalism,
> >>>> Rothbard ended up a "paleo-conservative".
> >>> I know. Rothbard went through many weird transformations.
> >> So, calling him an "anarcho"-anything is bizarre.
>
> > I correctly said that he was a founding father of anarcho-capitalism.
>
> You were trying to capture a certain cachet for yourself with that
> comment.  In the end, it really isn't accurate.

It is accurate, and I don't know what you're blabbering on about with
me trying to capture a certain cachet for yourself. I made a comment
about a position Rothbard expressed when he was an anarcho-capitalist.
You didn't bother to address anything I said in the OP, which you
obviously have no interest in discussing. I really don't know what the
point of this conversation is.

Pearl is not legally guilty of blackmail. Whether her conduct is
altogether morally kosher depends on what the provocation was, which
appears to be in dispute, but in any event certainly neither you nor
Derek are in a position to morally criticise. It really is quite
emetic to see the likes of you spouting about moral integrity and
moral character.

Mr.Smartypants
2008-12-15 14:50:41 EST
On Dec 12, 1:30 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 3:43 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Dec 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> > >> Rupert wrote:
> > >>> On Dec 12, 1:55 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> > >>>> Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>> Murray Rothbard, a founding father of anarcho-capitalism,
> > >>>> Rothbard ended up a "paleo-conservative".
> > >>> I know. Rothbard went through many weird transformations.
> > >> So, calling him an "anarcho"-anything is bizarre.
>
> > > I correctly said that he was a founding father of anarcho-capitalism.
>
> > You were trying to capture a certain cachet for yourself with that
> > comment.  In the end, it really isn't accurate.
>
> It is accurate, and I don't know what you're blabbering on about with
> me trying to capture a certain cachet for yourself. I made a comment
> about a position Rothbard expressed when he was an anarcho-capitalist.
> You didn't bother to address anything I said in the OP, which you
> obviously have no interest in discussing. I really don't know what the
> point of this conversation is.
>
> Pearl is not legally guilty of blackmail. Whether her conduct is
> altogether morally kosher depends on what the provocation was, which
> appears to be in dispute, but in any event certainly neither you nor
> Derek are in a position to morally criticise. It really is quite
> emetic to see the likes of you spouting about moral integrity and
> moral character.


Rudy loves to paint himself with the same brush he uses to paint
others.

It's quite comical.

Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron