This is a question I have never seen touched before. It seems like, from a NAP perspective, verbal abuse is similar to intellectual property or the social contract; verbal abuse would be considered as abuse as much as the social contract is a contract or intellectual property is considered property; that is to say, not at all.
However, according to Libertarian theory, in a free society, there is a place for rescuing a child from an abusive home. Would this only be physically abusive? Passively abusive (as in negligent to a child's well-being)? Anyway, I think many, including Molyneux, make a a good case that while at later ages "verbal abuse" is not that severe, it can be during a child's developmental years, but I am no expert in child psychology so i have no idea how valid these studies are.
Anyway, I have no real opinion on the matter...yet. I am just wondering where you think verbal abuse's place will be in a free society?
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
Just found this post. It furthers my question, especially with regard to rape. Do we only punish the property aggression with regard t the phsyical damage that the rape results in (i.e. vaginal tearing, etc.) or can restitution also be got for emotional damage?
Consider the following:
A female heart surgeon leaves the hospital where she is employed and is accosted by a man who proceeds to rape her there in the parking lot. Just before the woman is raped, the woman is able to sound a silent alarm that she carries with her, and her protection agency (likely in coordination with her insurance company) comes to her aid. However, her protective service comes just in time to apprehend the man, arresting him as he is about five feet away from her and fleeing the scene.
To remove any further doubt, the woman is also able to recognize the man's face and voice, and before she can see him again, she explains that the man who raped her had a tattoo of a scorpion on his right hand thumb and the letters ABC written next to it. As it turns out, these letters are the defendant's initials and he does, in fact, have a tattoo of a scorpion located on his right hand thumb. It is now known almost certainly that the defendant is the man who raped the woman.
Now, by the time the rapist had been apprehended, the rape has already occurred and the damage has been done. The plaintiff will, of course, be awarded reparations for the vaginal tarring that occurred during the rape, per property rights over the woman's body that had been aggressed. However, the plaintiff also makes a slam dunk case that the rape resulted in severe bouts of depression and shaky hands. She proves in every way possible that before the rape, the depression and shaky hands were not present. She performed expert surgeries for years, ones that required extremely steady hands. These surgeries also never phased her emotionally. She was a robot in the operating room, and could easily compartmentalize her emotions.
Because of the shaky hands, she is no longer able to perform the surgeries without the tremendous liability of harming her patients. Her long and erratic bouts of crying and debilitating depression also destroy her will to do anything, even to eat.
Here is the question: can the defendant also be held to make reparations for the woman's, likely more severe, emotional trauma, or does this have no place in a free society? Would the lack of income due to the woman's inability to perform surgeries simply fall under the obligations of her disability policy? This seems like a viable alternative to the defendant's obligation to pay, however, usually insurance only pays in the absence of justice (i.e. the aggressor is not caught). When you have caught the obvious cause of the problem (the rapist in this case), would it not fall on him; the insurer only paying if the defendant cannot pay? Or would the insurer pay the plaintiff in either case, and the insurer would then have the right to go after the rapist for damages?
Interesting stuff...
“What about the defense that speech cannot be aggression since it does not actually invade others’ property borders? It is true that a speech act per se is not an act of aggression: it does not intentionally cause the person or property of another to be physically and nonconsensually infringed upon.[7] But some speech acts can be classified as acts of aggression in the context in which they occur because they constitute the speaker’s use of means calculated to inflict intentional harm. One clear example of this is threats of force. The threat to stab someone does not actually pierce the victim’s skin; it is a “mere” speech-act, but it is still regarded as aggression. In other cases, the act of speaking-communicating-and the other people with whom the speaker communicates serve as one’s means to achieve a certain end. The firing squad commander who yells “Fire!” is as responsible for the ensuing execution as the riflemen themselves. This is not because his spoken word was physically the cause of the victim’s death. His voice did not propel the bullets forward-and it did not have to. Instead, the firing squad commander is responsible for the execution because of what the command “Fire!” signifies in the context it was uttered; it signifies that the commander intends for the victim to die and is choosing to employ means-his firing squad-calculated to achieve that goal. The firing squad commander isn’t “merely” speaking; he is intentionally colluding with the shooters for the purpose of killing the victim. Likewise the president who orders a bomb be dropped is causing the bombing; he is employing the pilot and other underlings as his means. By being part of a certain organization and having certain relationships with other people, as a practical matter he is in a position to use other people to achieve his ends.[8]” - Stephan Kinsella and Patrick Tinsley, Causation and Aggression.
Well, it seems that the more and more we learn about neuroscience, the more it is being discovered that changes in our mental phyce actually are physical changes. That it, the physical connections between our neurons (and, indeed the very neurons themselves) can change drammatically through experiences. This is especially true during childhood.
So, when we're talking about verbal abuse, it can actually cause a physical change.
Or with your question on rape... the vaginal damage is one aspect that has a negative effect on the victim. But, also, the mental and emotional effects can also be described as a physical change which negatively effects the woman
(I think in terms of NAP... whether or not a change is deemed positive or negative isn't important, it's whether the person consented to the change at all... this starts getting very difficult, when talking about connectomes, etc. Do we apply the NAP at this level? If not, when do we stop applying? And why stop at that level? Does it turn into an arbitrary value?)
Also, can this apply to subliminal commercials? If subliminal commercials change your mental state without your consent, could take be a violation of the NAP? Doesn't matter if the product is good for you, or not, or whether you then *voluntarily* consume the product after, the point is that somebody has violated the property rights of your brain, and caused a physical change. But, then, do we have property rights over such a thing? In order to claim control over that property, you would need to infringe on the rights of others, to ensure that nobody does anything that causes a physical change that you don't consent to. Sorry, I'm just thinking aloud.
Yeah, it is both interesting and exasperating to think about these things. We cannot move into arbitrary measures because then we become hypocrites.
Samuel Smith:Also, can this apply to subliminal commercials? If subliminal commercials change your mental state without your consent, could take be a violation of the NAP? Doesn't matter if the product is good for you, or not, or whether you then *voluntarily* consume the product after, the point is that somebody has violated the property rights of your brain, and caused a physical change.
I remember my marketing professor back in college talking about how, despite the many efforts to use sublminial messaging, it does not work and never has. Perhaps in the future it will, but it is so far a pseudoscience-offshoot into a marketing conspiracy theory. Here is more info.
If you need any more proof, the CIA tried to do the step above that with their Project MK-ULTRA experiments. These were basically their attempt to create what they believed the Russians had already created: a mind control device with which to produce a "Manchurian Candidate". They used a lot of LSD and other psychedelic hallucinogens...and they failed. Read that link for it. Pretty fucked up stuff...Operation Northwoods would have been right up there with it had Kennedy not struck it down in disgust before it happened.
Remember that rape also involves taking away the freedom of someone. If I lock you in a room, I have still aggressed against you even if you remain unharmed after I let you out.
As for the depressions caused by the rape, I don't know really. But loss of hand function is at least a physical effect, and if it can be proven to be a result of the rapists actions then I assume he should be held responsible.
How easy it is for libertarianism to slide into American liberalism. One must be vigilant all the time.