Many libertarians believe in the two principles below:
Principle 1: "If you physically harm my property, body or liberty, I can physically harm your property, body or liberty."
I fully support this principle. For example I am consistently against all forms of taxation or positive rights.
Principle 2: "If you harm me emotionally but not physically I cannot harm you physically or harm your property"
The libertarians who support this principle will be against any form of defamation laws, privacy laws, blackmail laws or emotional exploitation laws.
I don't fully support this principle. I believe in some cases physical force can be used against those who harmed others emotionally, even though there are very few such cases.
In my view libertarianism is all about the first principle, the lack of positive rights. You don't own anything to anyone. I don't see how the second principle stems from the first, or what is the advantage of sticking to it so rigidly. Can you enlighten me please?
your post upset me emotionally. the goons have been sent to deal harsh justice and set things right. please stay at your home for the next hour, don't make them chase you....
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
You are the only one that harms you(rself) emotionally.
The second stems directly from the first. If the only acceptable reason to harm property, body or liberty is in response to the same, "emotional" injury is not an acceptable reason.
No, that's not what the first principle said. It didn't say it is the only acceptable reason. Logically the second principle definitely doesn't stem from the first. These are two independent logical statements.
Read this, and then stop defining libertarianism as not this.
http://mises.org/daily/3660
"No, that's not what the first principle said. It didn't say it is the only acceptable reason. Logically the second principle definitely doesn't stem from the first. These are two independent logical statements."
Sorry, didn't mean to misquote. I assumed it was understood. I do assume that most libertarians would accept my rephrasing of your first premise as more accurate.
One would still have to amend the first statement to "If you physically harm my property, body or liberty, I can physically harm your property, body or liberty, unless you were acting in response to previous emotional harm done to you by me" in order to clarify and consistently allow for the second, which feels like begging the question to me.
Eugene:The libertarians who support this principle will be against any form of defamation laws, privacy laws, blackmail laws or emotional exploitation laws.
Defamation: Can you own a reputation? Or let me state the question another way, can you own how other people percieve you?
Privacy: If they are not on your property, what Property Rights are being broken? You say that you can then sue for emotional damage caused by, for example, a stalker. Can you own emotional states? Can you sue people for hurting your feelings (what crime is being commited)?
Blackmail: Read Walter Block again in Defending The Undefendable. If he lies, there is nothing illegal about lying. If he is threatening to tell the truth which you do not want out, and you make a contract with him to not say such information, THEN if he says the information you there is a crime. You cannot sue him if there is no contract, or if he is just spouting off lies.
Emotional Exploitation Laws: Examples? I bet all of these fall under "Can you own emotional states?"
Eugene:I believe in some cases physical force can be used against those who harmed others emotionally, even though there are very few such cases
You haven't brought up any good cases. Emotional damage alone is not a crime, because you cannot own emotions.
Emotional damage can have strong and long standing physical effects on someone. There's really no difference between the two.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Laotzu del Zinn:Emotional damage can have strong and long standing physical effects on someone. There's really no difference between the two.
Except casuality.
Indeed, I would definitely distinguish between emotional damage suffered as a child and emotion damage suffered as an adult.
If you're an adult, then you are wholly responsible for the physiological reactions that result as a reaction to situations that are bereft of physical damage.
As a child, however, who is not fully autonomous and incapable of handling emotional abuse, I would think differently on the situation, but I'm not yet sure what my solution would be.
It always goes back to freedom of speech; I particularly like Thomas Scanlon's defence of the Millian Principle, which holds that individuals as autonomous agents are by definition capable of independently weighing ends and means and deciding whether to pursue a particular course of action. So, obviously, if I tell you to rob a bank and you do so, I'm not at all responsible. In order to commit the actual robbery you had to form independent reasons in your mind for action, else you would not have acted. This all, of course, assumes a rational and autonomous adult. It would be quite different for an invalid or a young child, but otherwise, like emotional damage, there does not appear to be outright grounds for enforcement over 'emotional damage' or the negative effects that arise as a result of free speech.
Re: Principle 2. Privacy would seem to infringe on property rights. If someone is hiding camera's in your bedroom or even by an owner in his clothing shops dressing room, it would seem to violate your right over self ownership. Seeing as the individual did not give permission to videotape him/her nude. The person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in both those scenarios.
Defamation, when obviously untrue, also is an aggression upon your property; seeing as it could potentially harm your business. Blackmail laws can not be classified in the same category as defamation and privacy seeing as blackmail is essentially a contract. The blackmailer has come across information that may be detrimental to you and it is your choice to decide if you want to pay the money, have sex with the person, etc in order to suppress the information. I see nothing wrong with blackmail.
As for emotional exploitation, I don't feel I know enough to comment, though the term seems a little broad.
Ultimately, I don't support principle 2 or oppose it 100%.
Laotzu I read your post and now I feel so sad that only $1 million could compensate me. Pay up or else.
You mean which part of the brain signals distress?
I think Aristippus summed up my point better than I could. He highlights the incredible difficulties that the idea of emotional damage brings, namely the near impossibility of its quantification.
Jurors, pay attention! I've been emotionally harmed--*stretches arms wide*--THIS MUCH. You decide the verdict.
ThinkAnarchy:Re: Principle 2. Privacy would seem to infringe on property rights. If someone is hiding camera's in your bedroom or even by an owner in his clothing shops dressing room, it would seem to violate your right over self ownership. Seeing as the individual did not give permission to videotape him/her nude. The person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in both those scenarios.
If someone planted a camera in your bedroom without your permission, they would have had to trespass onto your property to plant it there. Trespassing is illegal.
As to a person in a dressing room. There would be nothing illegal about a property owner placing cameras in their business. You would have a strong incentive to state they "have cameras watching you", and competitors would have a strong incentive to clearly state "we are not watching you." It would be up to the market and profits and losses to decide who wins out.
You cannot own images/videos of yourself, and you are free to avoid businesses which do state they spy on you, or are not very clear whether they do or not, and only go into the dressing rooms of those which clearly say "we have no cameras placed in the dressing rooms."
ThinkAnarchy:Defamation, when obviously untrue, also is an aggression upon your property; seeing as it could potentially harm your business.
You can't own value.
Defamation, when obviously untrue, also is an aggression upon your property; seeing as it could potentially harm your business.
Competition hurts my business. Where are the feds when you need them?
I think you should read On Liberty to see Mill's response to this problem. Unless I have violated a distinct and assignable obligation to you in the exercise of my actions, then there is absolutely no reason for me to be coerced. Note that this is not an expression of my own viewpoint; it is merely a possible solution to the problem you have posed.
I don't really care for Mill that much, myself.
Not necessarily, it could be placed by a sibling, roommate, or partner. Better yet, it could be placed by a father/mother who owns the entire property.
I agree the free market would help weed these things out, and most women would not willing change in an establishment with signs saying they have camera's in the dressing rooms, therefor, it's unlikely people would advertise camera's in these areas.
Simply because I drive my car on your property, does it justify your use of my car without express permission? Simply by using another property does not automatically forfeit the visitors property rights.
You CAN own images/videos of yourself, but you don't always or automatically. If the business states they videotape you in states of undress; I see nothing wrong with that. It seems you should have a reasonable expectation to not be spied on in an area that is ultimately set up as private. By going in to a small room with four walls you expect privacy, otherwise you would simply change in the middle of the store. How many signs would there be in your version of an Ancap society?
As to defamation, I'm less sure about that and will have to read some things regarding it. I understand your point, but am not willing to admit defeat.
As I said in the last post, I'm not as sure on the defamation aspect (it was posted after your post though). I feel comparing competition with defamation is unfair however, seeing as competition is not based upon a lie. Competition is a fair way of destroying an opponent. Libel or slander is, at the least, an immoral way of destroying ones opponent. Granted, I'm not saying because something is immoral it should be punishable in anyway.
But perhaps after reading more about it I will see a comparison between competition and defamation.
I think you should read On Liberty to see Mill's response to this problem. Unless I have violated a distinct and assignable obligation to you in the exercise of my actions, then there is absolutely no reason for me to be coerced. Note that this is not an expression of my own viewpoint; it is merely a possible solution to the problem you have posed. I don't really care for Mill that much, myself.
I will, although not tonight. I'm very curious now about the defamation issue, but still feel a comparison to competition is not equitable.
ThinkAnarchy:Not necessarily, it could be placed by a sibling, roommate, or partner. Better yet, it could be placed by a father/mother who owns the entire property.
The case of the father/mother is no problem. They are the owners of the property. Sibling, roomate, partner, that depends on the situation. I was more takling of Eugene's previous example of a "pervert" (stranger who you do not know).
ThinkAnarchy:I agree the free market would help weed these things out, and most women would not willing change in an establishment with signs saying they have camera's in the dressing rooms, therefor, it's unlikely people would advertise camera's in these areas.
Then if it is such a big deal, there would be consumers and whistleblowers who would make others aware of which businesses do or don't have cameras.
ThinkAnarchy:Simply because I drive my car on your property, does it justify your use of my car without express permission? Simply by using another property does not automatically forfeit the visitors property rights.
The car is your property, but if you drive on my road and I take an image of your car?
What Property Rights are being violated in the case of dressing rooms? Are you saying you can own images/videos of yourself?
ThinkAnarchy:You CAN own images/videos of yourself, but you don't always or automatically.
What situations can you own the images/videos of yourself. Only when you take them yourself and keep them to yourself.
ThinkAnarchy:How many signs would there be in your version of an Ancap society?
However many entrepeneurs decide is a reasonable amount to have depending on their consumers concerns. If enough people become concerned about dressing room cameras, there is an incentive to ensure customers get what they want (dressing rooms without cameras).
ThinkAnarchy:As to defamation, I'm less sure about that and will have to read some things regarding it. I understand your point, but am not willing to admit defeat.
I would recommend Defending The Undefendable, by Walter Block:
http://mises.org/resources/3490/Defending-the-Undefendable
ThinkAnarchy:I feel comparing competition with defamation is unfair however, seeing as competition is not based upon a lie. Competition is a fair way of destroying an opponent. Libel or slander is, at the least, an immoral way of destroying ones opponent.
"Harm your business", I assume by that you mean, hurt the reputation of the business, or make you lose revenue. But you do not, and cannot, own a reputation or a given amount of revenue. Thus, what Property Rights are being infringed... none.
Thus the only leg your case falls on is when what you say about my company "is untrue", but this is just lying. Is lying supposed to be illegal now?
ThinkAnarchy:But perhaps after reading more about it I will see a comparison between competition and defamation.
He just brought up the competition example because you stated "potentially harm your business." Competition can also harm your business, you can be driven out of business because the other guy makes a better product, or makes it cheaper than you.
@Eugene
I actually disagree with the concept of libertarian principles except for the concept of liberty itself. Not trying to be a smartass either, but I really do.
I know, ethics has a way of forming either directly or indirectly, but I think with libertarianism, ethics should always be indirect with the ultimate goal being the maximum amount of liberty.
For me, libertarianism holds an indirect principle of not having liberty affected by an opposition, hence government, someone busting in and taking my property, et cetera. This principle manifests itself in the form of rules and laws, which I would consider ethics, but ethics (for me, anyway) aren't the initial focus. Only liberty. The rest naturally solves itself imo.
This is why I cling to the Bill of Rights. Thank God for the anti-federalists' foresight and sound judgment to remain skeptical even with the government built on the idea of freedom. They knew the government would grow to become tyrannical and that the only thing preventing them from further perverting the new rule of law (otherwise known as the U.S. Constitution) would be a static bill clearly listing the essential freedoms to be upheld by the federal government.
I know we're lost, but at least we still have a map. Could you imagine America without the Bill of Rights? They've already attempted to redifine them 101 times, without them we'd officially be the USSA by now.
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry
I've mulled over this problem for a long time, and I have decided that only direct infringement upon property can be considered a crime, emotional distress cannot because of the fact that all emotional distress is is the creation of a state of affairs which the individual does not like to which he has no claim over in terms of property. I don't like that you are wearing that shirt, I don't like that you bought the house I wanted, these things bring me emotional distress, but I have no claim over anyone else or what they do with their life, and so their actions are not crimes.
Liberty must be contained in terms of property rights, or they are rights unlimited, and when rights are unlimited (in this case the ability to press charges for things that I don't like which cause me distress) result in no rights at all. If I don't get X then I will be distressed so you can't have it, if you don't get X you'll be distressed I can't have it.
Even in cases were people are distressed into suicide this is still a case where they respond to events based upon their property and their will, they are not forced into anything, and any emotional harm brought to them is simply a case where they interpret events in a certain way that brings them harm, no one is physically doing something to them. Even if you claim that they have control over their own lives and minds the other people still have control over their actions, and so all the above still applies.
Emotional state is encoded in the brain and the brain is part of the body, thus emotional state is an integral part of the body and thus under your ownership. At the end emotional damage is a physical damage. For example a man who was scared by someone so much that he developed a post traumatic stress disorder was hurt emotionally, yet the harm was just as physical. Separating between physical and emotional damage is useful in most cases, but it doesn't mean these are really separate things, biologically this is definitely not so. In some cases emotional damage if caused by certain immoral actions should be illegal in my opinion.
The argument that once it is possible to sue against emotional damage it means everyone will sue for stupid things such as disliking certain forum posters is preposterous. It doesn't happen even in today's statist society, so surely it won't happen in a libertarian society in which most people believe in weak legal framework.
Brutus:For me, libertarianism holds an indirect principle of not having liberty affected by an opposition, hence government, someone busting in and taking my property, et cetera.
This isn't an indirect principle. It is the foundation of libertarianism. All of the lifestyle and other choices associated with libertarianism are window dressing by comparison.
Eugene:The argument that once it is possible to sue against emotional damage it means everyone will sue for stupid things such as disliking certain forum posters is preposterous.
People are applying a reductio ad absurdum to your argument, which is typical in discourse. They are taking your argument to its logical end, and the logical end is that if feelings truly are ownable, then we should be able to act legally on any feeling.
It is up to you as the person claiming feelings are ownable (burden of proof) to support your claim, and explain how and why this is true, and what limits would occur to prevent the absurd conclusion from happening.
This is how people argue intelligently. You should be trying to achieve that level with your arguments.
Eric:You mean which part of the brain signals distress?
Nope.