Nothing to See Here, Folks
Talk show host David Letterman told his audience last night that he was the "victim" of a $2 million extortion attempt. Bill Carter of the New York Times reports:
Mr. Letterman said on "The Late Show," on CBS, that he had been approached by a person who wanted $2 million not to go public with information that Mr. Letterman had been in sexual relationships with women who work on his show.
Mr. Letterman said that he had testified before a grand jury and had admitted to the relationships.
"My response to that is, yes I have. Would it be embarrassing if it were made public? Perhaps it would," he said on the show. "I feel like I need to protect these people. I need to certainly protect my family."
. . .
Mr. Letterman said that three weeks ago, he received a package from a person who claimed to have information about the relationships.
Mr. Letterman said he reached out to the Manhattan district attorney's office.
In the course of the investigation, Mr. Letterman was asked to write what he called a fake check for $2 million. The suspect in the case was arrested Thursday.
Neither Mr. Letterman nor the district attorney's office revealed the person's name. In a statement late Thursday night, CBS said the suspect was an employee of the CBS news program "48 Hours" and was arrested on charges of attempted grand larceny. The network said that the employee had been suspended.
So what exactly is the crime? A man with truthful information about Mr. Letterman's past said he would publish that information unless Mr. Letterman paid him to keep quiet. This happens every day under the sanction of the judicial system, but when it's done without lawyers or judges, suddenly it's "extortion."
Mr. Letterman is not a victim here. This situation was the result of his own actions. However, since he's a Caucasian celebrity, the New York County district attorney felt obliged to bring criminal charges to help shield Mr. Letterman from criticism. When an African-American celebrity makes a mistake in New York, of course, the same DA will throw you in prison for two years.
UPDATE: New York County DA Robert Morgenthau issued this laughable statement:
"The message of this indictment should be clear. New York City will not tolerate the coercion or extortion of anyone, be the victim rich or poor, famous or anonymous. The law prohibits conduct like defendant's and attaches severe penalties to it. We intend to enforce the law."
Really? Morgenthau won't "tolerate the coercion or extortion of anyone"? I assume this means he'll be indicting every single member of the New York State government -- including himself -- that depends on coercion or extortion to support their own positions.
Comments (153)
Byzantine
Oh please. Nobody denies what happened to Plaxico Burress was immoral and unjust, but the DA was motivated by liberal, progressivist hysteria about guns, not racial bias. In fact, the key premise of gun control is the persistent refusal to see that violent crime is a people problem, not a 'gun' problem, and this despite the fact that a certain 6% of people are responsible for half of violent crimes. This is the very essence of the anti-racist view, and the New York political establishment is in the vanguard.
In Mr. Letterman's case, again, he was shielded not because he was white, but because of liberal, progressivist notions about human sexuality and marriage. In fact, Mr. Letterman's pecadilloes follow a very classic African-American model: promiscuous males and polyandrous females. This is a model the liberal axis of LA and New York has been pushing down the rest of the nation's throats for some time now, and their triumph is almost complete.
Get out much, Skip?
Published: October 2, 2009 9:50 AM
EnEm
Any way you look at it, truthful information or not, it's still blackmail.
Of course, Mr. Letterman's pants should be pulled down around his ankles and he should be tied to a post in Times Square just ten minutes before the next ball drops and his skinny ass should be flogged.
If women find the likes of Mr. Letterman attractive then there's nothing more to be said about their personal standards.
Published: October 2, 2009 10:08 AM
lester
" Mr. Letterman's pecadilloes follow a very classic African-American model:"
yeah because white people learned PROMISCUITY from black people. That's why God through Moses said thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife, cuz he knew one day they would meet black people and start doing what they did.
Published: October 2, 2009 10:21 AM
geoih
Quote from EnEm: "Any way you look at it, truthful information or not, it's still blackmail."
What's your point? If it's not a crime to do it (i.e., tell the world David Letterman's secret), then it's not a crime to not do, or to not do it for money.
Published: October 2, 2009 10:30 AM
Stranger
What's going to happen from now on is that whenever anyone has any such information, they will immediately sell it to the media instead of offering to preserve the privacy of the target.
Published: October 2, 2009 10:43 AM
KP
Extortion is considered a federal crime, sleeping with an individual is not.
What Plaxico did was ILLEGAL, though I do not agree with the gun laws it is still ILLEGAL. He got a reduced sentence because he was a celebrity and he has to pay for his crime.
Letterman slept with a person, and someone found out and was trying to reap the benefits. That person is only looking for money and for their own gain. AGAIN Letterman did not do anything illegal. Extortion however is ILLEGAL and a federal crime.
End of story, I do not know how stupid articles like this illustrate ABC
Published: October 2, 2009 10:52 AM
Horst Muhlmann
geoih:
If it's not a crime to do it (i.e., tell the world David Letterman's secret), then it's not a crime to not do, or to not do it for money.
Although I agree with what you are trying to say (if something is not illegal, it ought not be illegal to do that thing for money), your statement is oddly worded.
If it is not a crime to do something, it does not follow that it is not a crime to not do that thing. It is not a crime to refrain from robbing people. It is a crime to not refrain from robbing people. And sex is not a crime, but prostitution is a crime (of course it not not to be).
OT: Is there going to be an article on the released unemployment rate? The September U6 unemployment rate hit 17.0% (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm). That means the current unemployment is worse than in 1936, when the unemployment rate was 16.8% (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html). I say the recession is officially over, as the Second Great Depression is now underway.
Published: October 2, 2009 10:54 AM
Slim934
Let's be clear here, Plaxico Buress did not just "make a mistake".
What Buress did, and what any person who conceal carries on a regular basis, was supreme and absolute idiocy in every way, and in my opinion would have been dealt with harshly even in a purely free society.
It is my understanding, that Mr. Buress decided to carry a loaded firearms in a simple waistband (idiotic) with a bullet in the chamber (a normally reasonable move but supremely idiotic when you fail to properly carry your gun). He then proceeded to grab the gun by the grip and put his finger into the trigger well while it was in his pants. Any human being who has even been presented with a firearm just explain how it works will get an explanation of the basic rules of firearm safety. The commonly acknowledged 3rd rule is to ALWAYS KEEP YOUR FINGER OUT OF THE TRIGGER WELL until you have chosen and are aiming at what you wish to shoot.
Granted, the severity of his sentence is indicative of the fact that he decided to do this in New York where even the mentioning of the word gun causes the ruling elite to go ape-shit. But even in a totally libertarian society, his insurance would have likely dropped him after this incident by pointing to the fact that he is obviously a huge liability risk OR they would have increased his premiums astronomically. This would not take into account the likely sanctions which would imposed upon him the by the owner of the establishment he discharged in (assuming the owner had an open policy of forbidding CC in his place of business).
I do agree that 2 years is absurd. But he is most assuredly NOT a innocent victim. He would have been punished for his stupidity either way.
Published: October 2, 2009 10:54 AM
Diane
If Letterman wants to send a thank you to the Manhattan DA, let me be the first to suggest he send brownies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZXX9Wfl5S0&feature=fvw
Note the guy at the top, behind McCain's left shoulder.
Published: October 2, 2009 10:58 AM
Shay
KP wrote, "Letterman slept with a person, and someone found out and was trying to reap the benefits. That person is only looking for money and for their own gain. AGAIN Letterman did not do anything illegal. Extortion however is ILLEGAL and a federal crime."
If this extortionist had simply made the information public, without any option to keep it private, it would have been OK, right? But because he offered Mr. Letterman the option to keep it private, at a cost, he did something illegal? If the former is really preferable to the latter, Mr. Letterman could always have ignored the offer and pretended it never occurred, letting the guy make it public, and then it would have been as if the guy had never done anything illegal.
Published: October 2, 2009 11:38 AM
Scott Lazarowitz
You're Right. Letterman is responsible for the consequences of his questionable actions. This can be considered the boomerang effect of his nasty remarks about Sarah Palin's daughter. But can you blame these sex-crazed TV celebrities? He's just following in the footsteps of Bob Barker, Merv Griffin, etc.
Still, Letterman is definitely in need of psychiatric treatment, along with fellow nutsos Whoopi Goldberg, Roman Polanski, et al.
Published: October 2, 2009 11:42 AM
Mechanized
It is most unfortunate to see the race card being advocated at the Mises Blog.
KP makes a rather solid refutation in my opinion.
It is essentially none of the blackmailer's business what Mr. Letterman does with his personal time. Blackmail is merely an attempt at extortion for the purposes of obtaining easy money. How anyone, regardless of whom it might be, can support the idea of extortion is a mystery to me. It appears to be an impossible position to defend.
Published: October 2, 2009 12:07 PM
KP
Skay
"If this extortionist had simply made the information public, without any option to keep it private, it would have been OK, right? But because he offered Mr. Letterman the option to keep it private, at a cost, he did something illegal? If the former is really preferable to the latter, Mr. Letterman could always have ignored the offer and pretended it never occurred, letting the guy make it public, and then it would have been as if the guy had never done anything illegal."
First of all the man threatened Letterman of releasing information that does not pertain to him (he was not the direct party member, as in he did not sleep with Letterman) and then asked for 2 million dollars. I do not see how this is not extortion. If the said person, just said I have information on you; please release this yourself and let the other party members know about this or I will; then I believe there would be no problem. HOWEVER, that said individual tried to seek financial benefit from this. I don't care if you want to relate this to Plaxico but lets compare apples to apples.
Published: October 2, 2009 12:39 PM
KP
"'Extortion', outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion."
Hate to copy wiki but it easy to look up.
Also WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS!
Published: October 2, 2009 12:42 PM
Thedo
"How anyone, regardless of whom it might be, can support the idea of extortion is a mystery to me. It appears to be an impossible position to defend."
I'd suggest reading Walter Block's "Defending the Undefendable," if you haven't, for a defense of blackmail.
Published: October 2, 2009 12:47 PM
mpolzkill
"Mechanized",
I don't know what race has to do with it either, that was a stretch (though: "most unfortunate [to see someone from LvMI stretch] is a stretch itself), but...no, your straw man is not easily defended, I wouldn't try. I (along with most I believe) find blackmail to be repugnant and possibly dangerous (hence stupid). But the basic position of those who advocate Natural Law is very easy to defend: sins are not crimes. I don't know about Mr. Oliva, but with repugnant behavior every possible means of applying pressure *but* criminal activities or criminal prosecution (which is a criminal activity when applied to non-criminals) is OK by me.
- - - - - - -
"Byzantine":
"classic African-American model"
Blech...and this followed a jab at Black Americans' having disproportionate representation in crime outside of DC and Wall Street. (Did you find this nastiness most unfortunate too, "Mechanized"?)
Published: October 2, 2009 12:51 PM
hz
Extortion and blackmail are similar crimes, but not synonymous. Blackmail is the crime here.
Published: October 2, 2009 1:04 PM
RWW
I'm surprised at the law-worshipping, emotionally-based nonsense in this thread.
Extortion is considered a federal crime, sleeping with an individual is not.
Who cares what acts are considered "crimes" by the state? For goodness' sake -- engaging in any truly free market transaction is illegal in the US today.
What Plaxico did was ILLEGAL, though I do not agree with the gun laws it is still ILLEGAL.
So you are in favor of punishing people for breaking laws, whether the laws are just or not? That's pretty sick.
Letterman slept with a person, and someone found out and was trying to reap the benefits. That person is only looking for money and for their own gain.
Huh? Is there something automatically criminal about seeking monetary gain?
AGAIN Letterman did not do anything illegal. Extortion however is ILLEGAL and a federal crime.
See above. Also, there's more to forming a convincing argument than unthinkingly labeling an act with an ugly name.
It is essentially none of the blackmailer's business what Mr. Letterman does with his personal time.
What does this even mean? Are you suggesting he was wrong to even learn about what Letterman did? If not, what is the purpose of your statement?
Blackmail is merely an attempt at extortion for the purposes of obtaining easy money.
And...?
How anyone, regardless of whom it might be, can support the idea of extortion is a mystery to me. It appears to be an impossible position to defend.
First of all, my position is not that "blackmail" is a nice thing to do. Secondly, if you find it so hard to understand, it may be because you only seem to see it through the lens of emotion.
First of all the man threatened Letterman of releasing information that does not pertain to him...
Again I say: "So...?"
I do not see how this is not extortion.
The question is not how the act should be labeled, but whether it is worthy of punishment.
Published: October 2, 2009 1:16 PM
mpolzkill
"KP" screams: "WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS!"
Many believe that the observance of Natural Law and rejection of Positive Law goes hand in hand with the subject of Austrian economics.
I think a more useful example than the one Mr. Oliva chose would be: how would Letterman or the other selective moralists here like it if we lived under a different kind of theocracy and Letterman served time as well as the dirt-bag in question...for adultery.
Published: October 2, 2009 1:20 PM
Matt
You'll notice this is the anti-capitalist mentality taken to the extreme. Anything done for nice reasons is considered heroic and noble, whereas the thought of "profiting" from the same action is considered heinous.
Had the man just revealed Letterman's secrets he'd be called a "whistleblower".
If you donate your organs to someone you're a hero, if you do so for money you're the scum of the earth.
Sexual intercourse is fine, only if you don't pay for it afterwards.
Published: October 2, 2009 1:26 PM
FarSide
The point is not that no "laws" were broken - we all know this sort of thing is illegal under the laws of this country and state.
The point is that there was no personal freedom infringed upon here. No physical aggression. For those of us that believe in Natrual Law, therefore, no REAL crime has been committed by anyone.
If someone said, 'give me $2M or I will shoot you', then that most certainly would be illegal. But as Mr. Letterman's choices were simply a) pay money or b) allow truth of some of his actions to be told to others, there is no actual crime. Even if this information may cause harm to relationships one might have, this is not a crime.
As many have stated, this is not pleasant. But in the end Mr. Letterman is in control of his actions and therefore ultimately responsible. If he was very concerned about someone finding out, he shouldn't have done it. (If that sounds simplistic, it's because the concept is simple)
The connection between this and Burress is just that neither committed aggressive acts or infringed on others' liberties - both are non-crimes in the libertarian sense. (Of course since both are being prosecuted I fail to see the point here)
Published: October 2, 2009 1:29 PM
mpolzkill
FarSide: (Of course since both are being prosecuted I fail to see the point here)
I guess because all three did stupid things and Letterman is not prosecuted, is in fact called a "victim". I just disagree with the "black" part of his argument. Most DAs are conviction machines. I'd say that *if* they do target Black Americans more frequently it wouldn't be due to *their* "racism" but to their perception that Black Americans are on average more easily convictable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z2jtha8Oqg
Published: October 2, 2009 1:45 PM
Dana
This is the most idiotic article I've read on Mises.org. These 2 events have no parallelisms. If the author is so intent on ranting of ridiculous race issues, why doesn't he write for CNN or MSNBC instead of wasting space on one of my favorite websites. The race card has gone stale.
Published: October 2, 2009 1:50 PM
KP
Again I'll reiterate, I am not justifying the gun laws that Plaxico is held under and contained in jail. However, under NY LAW, ITS THE LAW (for now if you want it change you gotta stir up the pot and get enough voters) it is illegal.
What Letterman did was not. He had sex with an employee consensually! The person who was trying to extort money from him was violating the law. If you want the laws change then fight for it to change. The argument here is not that Letterman was guilty of anything but he was treated more fairly than Plaxico because Letterman is white and PLaxico is black.
Published: October 2, 2009 1:52 PM
KP
"I think a more useful example than the one Mr. Oliva chose would be: how would Letterman or the other selective moralists here like it if we lived under a different kind of theocracy and Letterman served time as well as the dirt-bag in question...for adultery."
It's not adultery if he wasn't married at the time. The relationship ended before he was married. He had a longtime partner since the 80s and recently got married (smart in my opinion). Get the facts straight. He was single but courts standard and was free to sleep with whomever he wants.
Published: October 2, 2009 1:58 PM
mpolzkill
KP,
How do you go about fighting for these changes in the law? Educating the public is the only way I know of. Sure, it's hopeless, but...
Again, I agree that the white/black thing here was strange (I wish he would just retract it, or give more evidence), but if Letterman wasn't guilty of something, why was he sweating it?
Published: October 2, 2009 2:02 PM
mpolzkill
KP: "The relationship ended"
Tiresome. That doesn't matter (get the simple point straight.), call it "fornication" if you wish, the point is the same: legislating morality, criminalizing sins is a terrible idea. Would you like it if your sins of choice were criminalized by *other* moral enforcers?
"He was single but courts standard and was free to sleep with whomever he wants."
Could you rephrase that? I don't quite understand it. I'm pretty sure though, it's just more of your deification of "the Law."
Any justifications for maintaining society through criminalizing immoral behavior are every bit as strong against Letterman as this anonymous dirt-bag, btw. Were any of these women married? *That* would then be an act of adultery and to me it's just as unethical, dangerous and stupid to sleep with some guy's wife as it is to blackmail someone. My point stands.
Published: October 2, 2009 2:18 PM
Nick
If selling the info to a disinterested third party is not a crime, then offering to sell it to any of the "interested" parties shouldn't be either.
Published: October 2, 2009 2:19 PM
RWW
I am not justifying the gun laws... However, under NY LAW, ITS THE LAW
Please inform me of the practical difference between these two:
A) agreeing with the law and supporting its enforcement
B) disagreeing with the law, but supporting its enforcement.
Published: October 2, 2009 2:53 PM
Rick
I really don't see what the issue is here. A man had sex with a woman. I'll assume it was two consensual adults. That's a pretty normal occurrence. No one used the words "affair" or "illicit". To me, the joke is someone thought they could 2 million for exposing it.
We seem to have a very "perverse" obsession with the sex lives of other people, that I don't get at all.
Published: October 2, 2009 3:28 PM
Mark
Why is blackmail a crime? Because rich, powerful men want to behave badly without having to pay a price for it. They want to have affairs. They want to be corrupt. They want to use their money and power to do bad things, and they don't want staffers to be able to profit from their knowledge of the bad deeds or have any power over them. Since rich, powerful men control government, they make this purely voluntary activity into a crime to protect each other from exposure of their bad actions.
Published: October 2, 2009 3:45 PM
Darren
The question is should what this man did... should it be illegal? If he sold this information to the media, then there would have been no problem, legally. The man offered David Letterman a choice. The man said he would not leak the truthful information in exchange for money. If David refused, the man most certainly would have gone to the press and made money anyway. Now, David Letterman is responsible for not only the affairs, but sending a man to prison, who gave Letterman a choice between hiding horrible acts and getting them out in the open. David Letterman is better off now because of this man. The man did not steal from David Letterman, he gave him a choice. He didn't put a gun to his head. He did not say that he was going to do bad things to him or his family if he does not give the man $2 million. He said he was going to tell the truth if he does not give him $2 million. David Letterman could have said no, in which case the information would have gotten out to the press anyway. If the man had information of a crime and was offering not to disclose it, then the man could be guilty of a crime. The man was offering to not disclose the truth about a non-illegal act. If the acts are not of a crime, then this is none of the government's business. If anything, this is a case of very bad manners. Would society be more moral and more responsible if there were no laws of this kind? If what this man did was not illegal, would people like David Letterman think twice before rampantly cheating on his wife and kids?
Published: October 2, 2009 4:04 PM
Bill Giltner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail
Published: October 2, 2009 4:09 PM
Darren
Let's get to the real reason though why the government is involved - It is $2 million that they can't tax.
Published: October 2, 2009 4:16 PM
Darren
Let's get to the real reason why the government doesn't like this: $2 million that they can't tax
Published: October 2, 2009 4:17 PM
tlpalmer
For the good of the USA we need everyone with a secret about a celebrity or politician to spill it. The public will overdose on who is doing what to whom, etc., get tired of gossip, and maybe more people will turn their minds to something important (End the Fed?).
Published: October 2, 2009 7:12 PM
Peter
What's your point? If it's not a crime to do it (i.e., tell the world David Letterman's secret), then it's not a crime to not do, or to not do it for money.
But that's the libertarian in you talking...for non-libertarians, any time money enters into things that are otherwise not crimes, it suddenly becomes possible that it is a crime. E.g., it's not a crime to have sex. It is a crime to have sex for money (not in half-way civilized countries, but in the US)...unless you get it on camera, of course, in which case it's "acting in an adult video" and not a crime again (unless one of the participants doesn't know it's being filmed, in which case it is a crime again! And so on...)
Published: October 2, 2009 7:27 PM
Peter
However, under NY LAW, ITS THE LAW (for now if you want it change you gotta stir up the pot and get enough voters) it is illegal.
And under Nazi law it was illegal to hide Jews in your attic...you suggesting the right thing to do would have been to ship 'em to Auschwitz? Idiot!
Published: October 2, 2009 7:40 PM
Tina Brewer
It is interesting to read the responses to these types of posts, wherein the discussion revolves around whether vices should be crimes. There seems to be this tendency, on both sides, to confuse the issue. On the one hand, those who wish to have vices criminalized seem to be worried that if something really nasty is not also a crime, then it will just run rampant in society, swallowing up all decency. On the other side, those who wish don't wish to have any vices criminalized can tend toward the error of sounding like they are morally defending something which is morally indefensible, even if they are technically correct that it should be legal. In my opinion, the two positions should never fall into such confusion. Libertarianism doesn't purport to be a philosophy that covers all moral ground. Libertarians are still responsible to say "there are realms of life which require my moral judgement outside of the scope of what the merely political philosophy of libertarianism has to offer". In the case of the above example of extortion, it would seem obvious that any basic human decency would contain a respect for the sanctity of the private lives of individuals. The violation of this sanctity is a morally offensive act, a VICIOUS act, even though the act should obviously NOT be a crime. Furthermore, the urge to profit personally without contributing anything of furthering value in the world, while objectively causing psychological suffering to other humans, is a disgusting, and VICIOUS act, even if it should not be a crime. If all of human moral life gets reduced to the very narrow scope of the physical non-aggression principle, we could have a very ugly society on our hands indeed.
Published: October 2, 2009 7:53 PM
Ribald
Problems that would still be present in the free market, as they are today, are viewed by some free market proponents as not important, or even a good thing--if they are acknowledged at all. The free market needs better proponents, or else onlookers will get the idea that it's all about legalizing what is currently illegal, rather than improving the human condition.
As others have said, blackmail is not just a crime, it's wrong. It is wrong because it violates the property rights of the victim and punishes him for committing acts which, though taboo, are not crimes. "Society is the real perpetrator of the crime." and "He shouldn't have violated taboo in the first place." are weak defenses indeed.
I didn't expect a post to directly raise the issue, but I mentioned in a comment on the recent processed food post that a line must be drawn between merely endorsing an act and coercing someone into doing it. In the case of blackmail, some obviously believe that acquiring private information and threatening to use it to damage the victim's reputation and social connections is just endorsing payment for services rendered, whereas the great majority understand it to be a shameless threat against the property of the victim, the equivalent of saying "Your house is structurally unsound. Give me money or I'll make it collapse."
Of course, one can always go the route of saying that intangible things are exempt from the notion of property, but then one would have to explain why they're worth money to protect.
Published: October 2, 2009 9:04 PM
George Tirebiter
"Furthermore, the urge to profit personally without contributing anything of furthering value in the world, while objectively causing psychological suffering to other humans, is a disgusting, and VICIOUS act, even if it should not be a crime."
Well said, Tina.
This describes the despicable actions of the banksters/government serpents that we are and will continue to suffer the fallout from, even though many of the actions were not technically illegal.
In the case of these parasites the individual offended parties are usually unknown, but nevertheless, still experience the psychological and physical suffering as a result of the actions.
Published: October 2, 2009 9:10 PM
Libertarian Bullshit
How is the "aggressor" using force here? Is he threatening to kill or harm someone if he doesn't get the money? If not, it's not really extortion (in a free market sense).
Published: October 2, 2009 9:17 PM
Peter
As others have said, blackmail is not just a crime, it's wrong. It is wrong because it violates the property rights of the victim and punishes him for committing acts which, though taboo, are not crimes.
Nonsense. If it wouldn't be wrong to release the information, how can it be wrong to offer to not release it for money? It's not only not a crime and not wrong, it's positively virtuous -- it gives the blackmailee the opportunity to keep his secret!
Published: October 2, 2009 9:17 PM
Libertarian Bullshit
"It is wrong because it violates the property rights of the victim and punishes him for committing acts which, though taboo, are not crimes."
The only way property rights can be violated is by using force or fraud to take someone else's property. No force or fraud is used in saying "give me all your money or I'm gonna say bad things about you". So no property rights have been violated.
Published: October 2, 2009 9:22 PM
Tina Brewer
@Peter
"its not only not a crime and not wrong, its positively virtuous-it gives the blackmailee the opportunity to keep his secret"...
No, you moral idiot, it is not positively virtuous to offer to sell someone something he already has as an aspect of his basic humanity, namely the personal knowledge, kept personal, of the goings on in his own private life. Also, the blackmailer could achieve your allegedly "positively virtuous" goal simply by keeping his greedy trap shut.
Published: October 2, 2009 9:41 PM
Gil
"WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS!" - KP.
Some like to fun with 'malum in se crimes versus malum prohibitum crimes.
However, how is threatening to shoot someone unless they give you money a crime worse than extortion/blackmail? A transaction was reached whereby one held all the cards while the other didn't want any part. Besides if the person who pays not to get shot was a wanted dangerous criminal then such extortion would be compatible with Libertarian values.
Published: October 2, 2009 9:54 PM
Russ
Tina Brewer wrote:
"It is interesting to read the responses to these types of posts, wherein the discussion revolves around whether vices should be crimes."
I don't think the issue is whether vices should be crimes. I don't recall seeing anybody post something saying that David Letterman should go to jail for cheating.
To me, the issue is; does a blackmailer commit what should be considered a crime? He doesn't violate anybody's rights. All he does is give a person alternatives; 1) you give me money, or 2) I let out a secret you don't want let out. I can't see how this could be considered a crime, according to the NAP at least, even if you may think it is slimy and underhanded behavior.
And yes, one could see blackmailers as performing a public service. Obviously, this is not a service to the person being blackmailed. But the possibility of blackmailing should make everybody think twice about doing something blackmailable, like cheat on your spouse, or embezzle from your company. You may say that cheating is not a violation of rights, so preventing it is not a public service. But isn't marriage a contract? Isn't cheating breaking that contract? And doesn't cheating sometimes result in acts of violence that are more egregious rights violations? So if something doesn't violate rights, and prevents violations of rights, isn't that a good thing? And even if cheating is not a violation of rights, and doesn't result in the violation of rights, it's still considered immoral by most people. So blackmail doesn't violate rights, and discourages immoral behavior. What's the downside?
The biggest problem I can see with blackmailing is not that it violates someone else's rights, but that it's stupid. After all, the most permanent way of getting rid of a blackmailer is to murder him. I think this probably has something to do with why it's illegal. Discouraging blackmail thus discourages blackmailers getting murdered, which makes for less paperwork for the cops.
Here's an interesting thought experiment (at least I think it is). What if a libertarian blackmailed politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc., except instead of asking for money, asked them to resign? Would that then be a bad thing? Is it still disgusting and vicious?
Published: October 2, 2009 10:02 PM
Libertarian Bullshit
"However, how is threatening to shoot someone unless they give you money a crime worse than extortion/blackmail?"
Because there is an actual threat of force in one and not the other. So one is a violation of rights and the other is not. DUH.
Published: October 2, 2009 10:37 PM
Robby
Tina,
Nope. First, calling someone an idiot does nothing to advance the argument. Second, the information is obviously and by definition not "personal knowledge, kept personal" if someone else knows it. For knowledge to actually fit into the mold you're suggesting, it would have to be the knowledge of one's own unexpressed thoughts. Once a second person knows it, it ceases to be personal. If you're going to call people idiots, make you make sense while your doing it.
Ribald,
You're mixing up wrongs here. "He shouldn't have violated taboo in the first place" is a fantastic defense to the proposition that if he didn't want anyone to know about his doing it, he simply shouldn't have done it. Several thousand years of experience have shown humankind that the only secrets are those kept between a person and his own mind. But you're getting at something different, I think. It seems like you are suggesting that perhaps the learner/spreader of the information has done something wrong - and maybe he has. If he came by the information innocently - say, he inadvertently walked in on the activity while it went on in a place he had a right to be - then the information is as rightfully his as it is the person(s) engaging in the activity. If, however, he knowingly violated a shield of some sort put up by the actor in order to learn of the activity, then he has invaded the privacy of that actor. It's a fine distinction, but a real one.
As far as explaining why intangible things, while not property, are worth money to protect: the difference is property rights and contract rights. I have an enforceable right in property in those things with which I mix my labor (or by proxy, buy with money I obtained by mixing my labor with something else and made a trade). In other words, a property right is the right to use a thing and exclude others from using that thing. This is necessary in practice, because we can't both swing the same baseball bat or sleep in the same pajamas (or, in the sense of land, farm the same tract without substantial agreement as to the methods of doing so - sharing in a property). A contract right is different. There is no physical restraint on the use of information, for example. If you gain knowledge, there is no physical barrier which prevents you from sharing that knowledge (by simply talking, copying or reproducing it infinitely, without expending physical resources - something you can't do with the gold coin in your pocket). If however, someone wants you to refrain from using that information in a certain way, he can pay you to shut up. If you agree and no force has been used, you have a contract. Note that you cannot be stopped from using this knowledge by someone simply taking it from you in the way a person could take your pencil and leave you unable to use that.
The fact that knowledge is not scarce is why you cannot have a property interest in knowledge. Contract can create scarcity where it did not previously exist (before the contract, there were potentially infinite copies of the information you know, but after, you are not free to broadcast it anymore, thus making it scarce). Contract creates the situation where the intangible thing is worth money, as well. If you broadcast your knowledge that someone would rather not be known, no one will pay you for it because it is not a scarce good. If, however, someone wants you to keep it secret, it is valuable, but only so long as you keep it secret. Once you tell, you breach your contract and the information is valueless once again.
Notice also that forbidding extortion tends to make physical violence more attractive. If paying someone hush money results in an unenforceable contract (which it does under our law), then it is more likely that someone who wants to keep information secret will create scarcity in less peaceful means than by buying it - he will bash the brains of the guy who knows too much until he doesn't know it anymore. That can't be the incentive we really want, can it? But it's the incentive we have. If Dave Letterman had paid the $2M, and then the extortioner had breached the contract by talking anyway, Letterman wouldn't have had an enforceable contract right because the contract was for an illegal act. So, under our current law, the only way for Letterman to be sure he was keeping the situation quiet was to physically harm the extortioner to the point that the knowledge was safe. Instead, Letterman slipped the information himself in a way that lessened the blow. But wouldn't everyone have been better off if Letterman could have negotiated a price to keep the extortioner quiet and obtained an enforceable contract right in so doing? That way, Letterman gets the story killed, the guy gets money, and no one else ever knows any of it happened. As it is, Letterman has the story out (which he presumably didn't want) and the guy is in jail (costing the subjects of New York money). How is this a better outcome?
Published: October 2, 2009 10:39 PM
Libertarian Bullshit
BIg difference between killing someone and putting someone out of business / ruining someone's career.
Published: October 2, 2009 10:41 PM
Russ
Robby wrote:
"If however, someone wants you to refrain from using that information in a certain way, he can pay you to shut up. If you agree and no force has been used, you have a contract."
Another way of thinking about this is that you don't personally own your reputation. It resides in the minds of your fellow citizens. So even if a blackmailer lets information out that damages your reputation, your rights have not been violated. The information may change the thoughts others have about you, but you have no right to control those thoughts; they belong to others.
Published: October 2, 2009 10:44 PM
James
A lot of people are making a lot of assumptions about this case throwing out terms like "extortion" and "blackmail" when the facts have not been established and the 48 Hour producer was actually charged with "grand larceny."
One might want to wait and look at the facts before condemning the accused or assigning a victim.
Published: October 2, 2009 11:13 PM
Gil
"Because there is an actual threat of force in one and not the other."
"Big difference between killing someone and putting someone out of business / ruining someone's career."
- L. Bullshit.
Really, what difference? How is jailing someone for rest of his life really any different from a death sentence? The extortioner is engaging in threatening behaviour, period. He isn't engaging in wealth creation by any stretch of the imagination. He's coercing the other guy for money - how is that different from robbery?
Published: October 2, 2009 11:13 PM
Yancey Ward
The problem here is that if the man had sold the information to a third party, it wouldn't have been a crime. I find it impossible to make a logical argument for why it is a crime to sell to Letterman the right to continue to conceal said information.
Of course, our laws frequently are irrational and contradictory.
Published: October 2, 2009 11:15 PM
Libertarian Bullshit
"Really, what difference? How is jailing someone for rest of his life really any different from a death sentence?"
Who's being jailed?
"The extortioner is engaging in threatening behaviour, period."
There's no threat to use FORCE, so no rights are violated.
"He isn't engaging in wealth creation by any stretch of the imagination."
Then simply ignore the blackmailer, since you wouldn't get any value by paying him off, and you wouldn't lose anything by not paying him. Right?
"He's coercing the other guy for money - how is that different from robbery?"
A farmer coerces people for money to keep from starving - how is that any different from robbery?
Published: October 2, 2009 11:26 PM
Robby
Thanks, Russ.
Published: October 2, 2009 11:46 PM
Russ
"He isn't engaging in wealth creation by any stretch of the imagination."
Whether somebody is engaging is wealth creation or not is irrelevant. What matters is that the blackmailee values the "service" the blackmailer provides; keeping his mouth shut.
"He's coercing the other guy for money - how is that different from robbery?"
No, he's not coercing anybody, since no force or threat of force is involved. He's just offering a deal; the blackmailee can take it or not, as he chooses.
BS wrote:
"A farmer coerces people for money to keep from starving - how is that any different from robbery?"
Ummm, no, a farmer does not coerce people to keep them from starving. But you knew that. This is a good analogy, though. The blackmailer is not coercing anyone, any more than the farmer is.
Published: October 2, 2009 11:50 PM
Ted
Wrong place to be working the "Whitie be alway pickin' awn me!" angle: It's leftist/socialist jingoism not befitting anyone interested in individual liberty.
Letterman received preferential treatment and speedy handling of his "case" because he is a well-to-do, show-biz Khazar, not because of skin color. Since there are more of them in New York than "Israel", big surprise ranks would close to defend.
Had they not, Abe Foxman would be all over TV, denouncing the public defender's office as "antisemitic".
Published: October 3, 2009 12:01 AM
FarSide
Yancey - that was the shortest, most to-the-point post on the whole thing. Thank you.
I have a non-facetious question - if "the guy" had planned to sell to a tabloid and Letterman got wind of it, would it be illegal under current law for him to try and buy the guy off?
Published: October 3, 2009 12:01 AM
Gil
Puh-lease, Russ and L. Bullshit! If the extortioner wasn't using any coercion then he wouldn't have any leverage against his victim. Suppose I threaten both of you that if you both won't pay me money then I will sit on the ground with a cup of soapy water and a plastic deely and incessantly blow bubbles into the air - would either of you pay up? Gee, I wonder why either you wouldn't?
On the other hand, a mugger offers people the same deal - give me money or get hurt. If people pay up then a contract was made - the mugger should sue the victims for breach of contract if they then go running to the police.
Published: October 3, 2009 12:04 AM
Russ
Gil wrote:
"Puh-lease, Russ and L. Bullshit! If the extortioner wasn't using any coercion then he wouldn't have any leverage against his victim."
Excuu-uu-uuse me! *grin* I thought we were talking about blackmail, not extortion. They are *not* the same thing. An extortionist threatens to use force (i.e. he threatens to violate rights) if he doesn't get his way. I would, of course, be opposed to that. A blackmailer simply threatens to release information that would harm the blackmailee's reputation. That does *not* violate rights, hence I would not be opposed to that (at least not to the extent that I think force should be applied to stop it).
You seem to be conflating extortion and blackmail, but they are most definitely not equivalent. The difference is that the "leverage" is the threat of coercion (i.e. force) in the case of extortion, but not in the case of blackmail. You could just as well say that farmers have "leverage" over you, because if you don't buy their food, you will starve. Are farmers extortionists because you must pay for their products or starve?
"Suppose I threaten both of you that if you both won't pay me money then I will sit on the ground with a cup of soapy water and a plastic deely and incessantly blow bubbles into the air - would either of you pay up?"
Oh, God! Not a plastic bubble deely! The horror! Here, Gil, here's my wallet, take whatever you want! *grin*
Um, seriously though, no, I wouldn't pay. But it's not extortion, because no threat of force was made, just the threat of being really annoying.
"On the other hand, a mugger offers people the same deal - give me money or get hurt."
This is extortion, because a threat of force was made. Hence, it's not permissible in a libertarian society.
"If people pay up then a contract was made - the mugger should sue the victims for breach of contract if they then go running to the police."
Ummm, no. Since the money was paid under duress (i.e. threat of *FORCE*), there is no valid contract.
Let's say that this was a blackmailing, though, not a mugging. The blackmailee and the blackmailer could be considered to have made a verbal contract that the information will not be released, in exchange for the money. If the blackmailer asks for more money, that could be considered a breach of contract (but of course the blackmailee is unlikely to try to sue for damages).
Published: October 3, 2009 1:18 AM
Havvy
"If you don't pay me $2 million dollars, I'm going to buy all of your neighbors' houses and make you a lonely person."
Woman: I ate pizza last night.
Man: Oh really now. Give me $5 or I'll tell all of your friends that you went off your diet.
Would these both be blackmail also? Is so, should they be considered illegal?
Published: October 3, 2009 2:40 AM
Peter
However, how is threatening to shoot someone unless they give you money a crime worse than extortion/blackmail?
Shooting someone is a crime...therefore threatening to shoot someone unless they pay you is a crime (or at least carrying out the threat would be). Telling the truth about someone isn't a crime...therefore threatening to tell the truth about someone unless they pay you ought not to be a crime, either.
Published: October 3, 2009 4:54 AM
Peter
No, you moral idiot, it is not positively virtuous to offer to sell someone something he already has as an aspect of his basic humanity, namely the personal knowledge, kept personal, of the goings on in his own private life.
So you believe that telling the truth is the actual crime here? The blackmail is secondary?
Published: October 3, 2009 4:55 AM
josh
People-come on, this isn't rocket science-it's child's play. It's just a voluntary exchange we're talking about --like any other voluntary exchange-- and nothing more. It's as simple as that. I'm sorry to say, but if you can't see there exists no rational basis as to why certain voluntary exchanges should be forbidden, then you seriously need to question your capacity to reason.
Published: October 3, 2009 5:20 AM
G8R HED
Is this not an intellectual property issue?
The so-called 'blackmailer' is offering Letterman exclusive patent to knowledge which they both share.
What the 'blackmailer' attempts is nothing less than what IP laws monopolize.
Published: October 3, 2009 8:47 AM
Brian Macker
I have to say there is a whole lot of errors being made in the article and on both sides of this argument. I wish people would think a little more deeply than they do.
The article itself is totally confused. The two cases have nothing to do with each other and it is absolutely not true that either outcome was about race. Overall a very poorly argued argument for legalizing blackmail.
"I'd suggest reading Walter Block's "Defending the Undefendable," if you haven't, for a defense of blackmail."
I've got the book and it is full of ridiculous arguments.
"The only way property rights can be violated is by using force or fraud to take someone else's property."
Nonsense. One can also violate property rights by endangerment. For example, your next door neighbor might decide to start storing dynamite on his property right next to your house.
"No force or fraud is used in saying "give me all your money or I'm gonna say bad things about you".
Be careful here. If you are going to say untrue bad things then it is fraud. You are then committing a fraud that interferes with the victims right to free association. In the same way as if you disrupted a theatrical play by shouting fire, even if it isn't crowded.
What you are saying is true if the claim being spread by the blackmailer is true. Then it isn't fraud.
Only Russ came close to understanding some of the issues involved that would tend to argue against blackmail being some kind of free market transaction.
You have to ask yourself what exactly is the victim of the blackmail getting from the blackmailer and whether it is a transfer of property, tangible or intangible.
Let's first consider the case where the "victim" of the blackmail has committed a crime that the blackmailer is threatening to divulge. In this case the underlying contract is totally unenforceable. Paying to keep a crime secret is obstruction of justice and the furtherance of a crime. This is exactly equivalent to bribing a witness.
I'm not going to write further on this but there are other reasons. Please think before responding.
What about the case where the "victim" has a secret that they wish not to be known? Can the blackmailer ever truly transfer "the goods" that he is selling to the victim? I don't think so. There is no way to enforce that contract either.
If there is no contract drawn up and this is all word of mouth then the blackmailer can just turn around and demand more money after any transaction. The victim hasn't actually received anything in return.
How can the victim even know if the contract was met? Perhaps the blackmailer spills the beans to some other blackmailer who then also asks for money. Perhaps the blackmailer divulges the information anyway to add insult to injury.
Suppose a written contract is drawn up. How can the victim enforce the contract without it losing value? In order to enforce the contract the victim has to ultimately have the viable threat of taking it to court and having the issue decided by a jury, or judge. The process is going to involve secretaries, lawyers, etc.
The blackmailer holds all the cards here with any attempt at enforcing such a ridiculous contract. He can have his cake and eat it too, and the victim knows this. Should the victim pursue this in the courts the blackmailer can still divulge the information anonymously to punish this attempt to enforce the contract.
Thus the blackmailer can change the terms of any contract at will. He can sign it, then later come back and say: "Hey, ya know, I spent that money on whiskey and women. I think we are going to need to renegotiate so that I don't find my conscience and tell your kid he's adopted."
There is no transfer of property here.
Also, anyone who has been arguing against patents on the grounds of non-exclusivity has a problem arguing blackmail is about property rights. After all there is no exclusivity in this kind of knowledge either.
Suppose there is a parent who has an adopted child who wishes to keep this secret until they are an independent adult. Suppose this is what the blackmailer learns and threatens to divulge in return for money. Exactly what value has the blackmailer produced in this case? How is this not coercion? I think it is clearly coercion in the sense of "Do what I want or something bad will happen to you due to my actions". Clearly the damages caused by the blackmailer are not due to any form of restitution or pursuit of justice, so that cannot be used to argue that this is not justified coercion.
Just because someone is willing to give money in exchange for some behavior doesn't mean the act is not criminal. There are all sorts of behavior that people can engage in that will destroy value for others that those others would be willing to pay for, and which do not involve force or fraud, or are generally considered criminal. Once you allow payment to prevent such behavior you are creating an incentive for a breakdown in civil society. Next think you know your neighbor will be asking you to pay for him not to play his stereo outside, and not to paint his house bright purple, and not to put a bird feeder right next to your driveway (so the birds don't crap on your car), etc.
Allowing blackmail means that some people will be attracted to the profession of destroying value for others, which is a totally unproductive activity.
For example, with blackmail there is an incentive for a certain kind of woman to prey on the weaknesses of men. It gives such women an large incentive to entrap married men, for example. A married man who is not seeking an affair might be enticed in to a kind of fraud where a much more attractive woman than his wife pretends to be very interested. The mans current marriage might be the best he was able to bargain for in the dating market. Yet this woman tricks him into thinking he has a better option. If you understand people you understand this is NOT always a calculating thing on the part of the man. So the woman sleeps with him then turns around and blackmails him for more money than your average prostitute would ever get.
You'll get lots more of that kind of behavior if you make blackmail legal.
Published: October 3, 2009 8:59 AM
Bob V
Steve Sailer's take on this episode may be of interest to those commenting here.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-is-blackmail-illegal.html
Published: October 3, 2009 9:14 AM
Tina Brewer
@Peter, Josh, etc.
I was under the impression that I had made clear my agreement that certain things, although morally vicious, should NOT be crimes according to the libertarian definition of the non-aggression principle, and I would include blackmail in that group of things. What I was attempting to do was say that just because we agree that a thing should be legal, that this threshold if a VERY LOW BAR for determining what behavior is MORAL. There is the realm of finer moral feeling, of voluntarily given consideration for the needs and desires of our fellow humans, etc. There is so MUCH that is not covered by just avoiding physical aggression.
@Robby; It is an absurdity to define personal knowledge as only that knowledge which exists in a single person's mind. When I use the term "my personal life", I am making a distinction between the life in which I voluntarily share my mind and body, in other words my private life of friends and family, versus the general public, with whom I have no intimate contact. There are many ways in which someone outside of my chosen group with whom I voluntarily share personal information might accidentally or with malicious intent gain some of that information. If I express to that person, who has illegitimately or accidentally gained that information, that I would prefer to keep that information private, and there is no necessity for sharing that information with anyone else (no crime is being covered up, etc) then there is nothing left but the vicious intent to harm which could possibly motivate the blackmailer in such a situation; they wish to inflict either mental/emotional harm, or they wish to inflict financial harm for personal gain. Both motivations are vicious.
Published: October 3, 2009 9:19 AM
Brian Macker
Josh,
No it's not so simple. I hope you are questioning your own "capacity to reason" at this point.
How could you possibly think this all boiled down to a voluntary exchange? How exactly does the victim disengage himself from the supposed transaction without it affecting him. Most voluntary exchanges do not involve harm when the other party decides not to act. Someone is not harmed by deciding not to buy a car.
Published: October 3, 2009 9:29 AM
Gil
If blackmail/extortion was legal think of gangsters finding out personal identifiction tidbit like your credit card number, your bank card PIN, etc.! "If you don't pay we'll take out loans in your name and raid your bank account and generally ruin your credit rating or hand the information to those who will!" Yep much more moral than asking a mugger for money in exchange for your life. Which reminds of a Blackadder scene that went along the lines of:
"Take my money just don't kill me!"
"Did I say 'your money or your life'? I meant to say 'your money and your life'."
* kills victim *
Published: October 3, 2009 9:34 AM
RWW
Discouraging blackmail thus discourages blackmailers getting murdered, which makes for less paperwork for the cops.
That seems the most likely reason for its illegality to me.
A lot of people are making a lot of assumptions about this case... One might want to wait and look at the facts before condemning the accused or assigning a victim.
The facts of this particular case are not relevant to the overall question of whether blackmail is an actual crime (not to be confused with an illegal act).
Most voluntary exchanges do not involve harm when the other party decides not to act.
And what about those that do? This strikes me as the same kind of reasoning that demands legal action against "price gouging." You have very odd and unprincipled (although unfortunately not uncommon) criteria for what can be considered voluntary.
Published: October 3, 2009 10:29 AM
RWW
As far as I can tell, those of you who think that blackmail is somehow an actual crime have yet to state whether it would have been a crime for the man in question to simply release his information to the public without any remuneration.
What do you say?
Published: October 3, 2009 10:33 AM
mpolzkill
Brian Macker,
First off, I'm irritated that you give Russ the sole credit for saying the reason why blackmail *is* illegal, when I first alluded to it by saying that it was dangerous and therefore (among other reasons) stupid. Anyway, I believe the main source of these arguments is the desire to devise *one* system for all. I propose that community standards should be the the lodestar in most cases. There should be three basic kinds of communities: those for lunatics, children in adult form and for adults. Communities for lunatics would develop as the type of people who like to play with dynamite and set up badger games would be driven from the other two types of communities. The communities for children may criminalize bad behavior the communities for adults would use societal pressure.
Published: October 3, 2009 10:47 AM
mpolzkill
That should read:
"The communities for children may criminalize bad behavior; the communities for adults would use societal pressure."
Also, adults caught in a badger game would laugh at the extortionist and accept responsibility for their wrongdoing (or fail to see what they did as "wrongdoing" and laugh at the extortioner for that reason) I really dislike the word "coercion" being used as lightly as you are using it. "Coercion" to me means "no choice"; it comes from the root of the word.
The "irritation" part was a half-joke, I wanted to add.
Published: October 3, 2009 11:01 AM
Mr. T
Dear Mr. Olivia!
Are you really a paralegal???
Because it seems like you don't even understand the difference between ILLEGAL and IMMORAL.
It is the job of DA and police to enforce the LAW, and the law says carrying guns in a disco is illegal. No matter the color of your skin.
Blackmail: also ILLEGAL!
Having an extramarital affair: NOT ILLEGAL! Hence not the DA's business. Whatever your ethnicity.
If you want to write about how disgusting you find the actions of Mr. Letterman, that's fine. But creating false accusations of racial bias amongst legal authorities (when they simply do their job and follow the law) just so that you have a story to tell is no less disgusting and immoral. And, oh yes, what is the legal term for that: libel...
Published: October 3, 2009 11:42 AM
Shay
G8R HED wrote, "Is this not an intellectual property issue? The so-called 'blackmailer' is offering Letterman exclusive patent to knowledge which they both share. What the 'blackmailer' attempts is nothing less than what IP laws monopolize."
It is not an IP issue. The blackmailer is offering a contract that binds only him and the one paying. Someone else with the same information isn't bound, so could do whatever he likes with the information. IP binds everyone, without any consent.
Brian Macker wrote, "What about the case where the "victim" has a secret that they wish not to be known? Can the blackmailer ever truly transfer "the goods" that he is selling to the victim? I don't think so. There is no way to enforce that contract either."
If I make a contract with someone involving a secret project, are you saying I can't include a clause about keeping quiet about the project?
"How could you possibly think this all boiled down to a voluntary exchange? How exactly does the victim disengage himself from the supposed transaction without it affecting him. Most voluntary exchanges do not involve harm when the other party decides not to act. Someone is not harmed by deciding not to buy a car."
If the blackmailer had changed his mind and simply released the information, without any option of payment to keep quiet, it would have still affected the victim. Are you thus claiming that it should be illegal to reveal any facts about another person that the other person doesn't want revealed?
And just to note, this is a question of legality, not social acceptance. The former involves the use of force, while the latter does not.
Gil wrote, "If blackmail/extortion was legal think of gangsters finding out personal identifiction tidbit like your credit card number, your bank card PIN, etc.! 'If you don't pay we'll take out loans in your name and raid your bank account and generally ruin your credit rating or hand the information to those who will!'"
That would be theft.
Published: October 3, 2009 11:45 AM
lester
if blackmail were made legal, people would likely move from that place out of fear. wether it is logical or not is meaningless. you and the other blackmailer would live in blackmailville by yourself.
more to the point, If that's how you plan on making a living you are lame.
Published: October 3, 2009 12:52 PM
Yancey Ward
One can construct scenarios where the "blackmail" should be illegal, but they are illegal because the threatened behavior itself is a rights violation like theft of property (see the credit card/bank account threat above), or are threats of violence, which, in this case, is called extortion, not blackmail.
However, the issue at hand is this particular case, and note that Letterman voluntarily released the information, one supposes, to prevent anyone else from selling it to a third party for profit.
Published: October 3, 2009 12:58 PM
Libertarian Bullshit
"more to the point, If that's how you plan on making a living you are lame."
That's right. It's better to make a living buying and selling derivatives on derivatives on derivatives on derivatives on derivatives on derivatives on derivatives on derivatives on derivatives on derivatives. It all works out as long as someone's dumb enough to buy an 11th layer and 12th layer and 13th layer ad infinitum, causing a permanent quasi-boom that boosts GDP and reduces unemployment of derivatives speculators.
Published: October 3, 2009 1:14 PM
Luke M
Yancey,
There is a difference between extortion and blackmail. The former involves the threat of violence while the latter does not. What property rights are violated in blackmail?
Published: October 3, 2009 1:40 PM
Ribald
It's fascinating to read the pro-blackmail arguments. It really highlights the problem that the free market draws no clear line between endorsement of behavior and coercion of behavior. At the extreme end of the spectrum, it is clear that it is wrong to use force, and that this should be a crime. However, it is also not a crime (by strangely-interpreted free market principles) to:
i) Crafting a deliberately complicated contract in order to cause clients to misunderstand what they are agreeing to.
b) Harass people up to the point where they engage in physical violence, in order to extract a legal reimbursement or compensation from a third party.
c) Sell the written works of another person, without license to do so (no force used, and no misrepresentation, so long as the book is attributed to its author)
d) Disseminate a person's financial identity (credit card number, pin, etc). It's not theft, it's just truth-telling
e) Disseminate unfalsifiable claims in an attempt at blackmail (unfalsifiable claims cannot be called misrepresentation since that requires falsification).
f) Acquire personal information without consent or payment (no force involved, and no property is taken. Besides, the public should know the truth!)
g) The printing of money by a bank to extract value from its clients. (so long as it is not contractually forbidden)
h) The hiring of a second party to destroy property of a third party. Only the second party commits a crime, while the first does not.
Et cetera.
None of these involves force, destruction or robbery of personal property, or misrepresentation of the terms of sale, *if* you interpret free market ethics to suit a sufficiently narrow view of what is a crime.
We should be careful not to be overzealous in interpreting free market ethics, or to assume that free market ethics is the only valid ethical system.
Published: October 3, 2009 2:15 PM
Russ
Gil wrote:
"If blackmail/extortion was legal ... [blah blah blah.]"
Gil, seriously, if you expect anybody here to take your argument seriously, then you have to quit conflating extortion and blackmail. By writing "blackmail/extortion", that indicates to me that you continue to do this. There's nobody here who's arguing that extortion, mugging, stealing peoples' bank account PINs, etc., should be legal. Extortion is threatening to commit an act that is in itself a violation of rights, unless the extortionee pays up. Blackmail is threatening to commit an act that is *NOT* in itself a violation of rights, unless the blackmailee pays up. Are you really incapable of comprehending this distinction, or are you being purposefully obtuse?
Here's what would happen if blackmail were legal. Blackmailers who aren't really smart would be either murdered, counter-blackmailed, or they would be outed as blackmailers themselves and nobody would have anything to do with them. I mean, seriously, would you do any business or socializing with somebody you know to be a blackmailer?
As for your example where extortion is legal, that's so silly that it's not even worth serious consideration. Every state wants to keep the monopoly of extortion rights to itself.
Brian Macker wrote:
"Allowing blackmail means that some people will be attracted to the profession of destroying value for others, which is a totally unproductive activity."
It's not destroying wealth, it's transferring it; from the blackmailee, to the blackmailer. Besides, if the blackmailee thought that keeping his secret wasn't worth the money, he wouldn't pay, so apparently he does think the deal is worth it. Revealed preference.
"For example, with blackmail there is an incentive for a certain kind of woman to prey on the weaknesses of men. It gives such women an large incentive to entrap married men, for example. A married man who is not seeking an affair might be enticed in to a kind of fraud where a much more attractive woman than his wife pretends to be very interested. The mans current marriage might be the best he was able to bargain for in the dating market. Yet this woman tricks him into thinking he has a better option. If you understand people you understand this is NOT always a calculating thing on the part of the man. So the woman sleeps with him then turns around and blackmails him for more money than your average prostitute would ever get.
You'll get lots more of that kind of behavior if you make blackmail legal."
Yes, you would. You'd also get a lot of beautiful corpses, since the men know who the blackmailesses are and have at least some idea of how they hunt victims. This is probably why we don't hear much about blackmailing by high-end prostitutes; because they know it would drastically lower their life expectancies. The smart ones may keep video recordings for "insurance" purposes, but that's not exactly the same thing. The only really smart way to do blackmail, as far as I can figure it, is for the blackmailer to be completely anonymous (perhaps by having the blackmailee wire money to a numbered bank account), and then keep his side of the deal. It would be even better if he could build a reputation (pseudonymously) as being an "honest" blackmailer. That would encourage the blackmailee to pay up, and unlike blackmailers who constantly ask for more, more, more, would be less likely to provoke a wealthy "client" into hunting him down.
Published: October 3, 2009 2:42 PM
Russ
Ribald wrote:
"i) Crafting a deliberately complicated contract in order to cause clients to misunderstand what they are agreeing to."
This is nothing we don't have now.
"b) Harass people up to the point where they engage in physical violence, in order to extract a legal reimbursement or compensation from a third party."
Depends on the type of "harrassment". Some harrassment could easily be construed as stalking, or some other type of implicit threat, and could be illegal.
"c) Sell the written works of another person, without license to do so (no force used, and no misrepresentation, so long as the book is attributed to its author)"
This belongs on an IP thread, but point taken.
"d) Disseminate a person's financial identity (credit card number, pin, etc). It's not theft, it's just truth-telling"
I can't see a sane society that would allow this.
"e) Disseminate unfalsifiable claims in an attempt at blackmail (unfalsifiable claims cannot be called misrepresentation since that requires falsification)."
An unfalsifiable claim isn't very good blackmail fodder. After all, the blackmailee can claim that it's just a made up, unfalsifiable claim.
"f) Acquire personal information without consent or payment (no force involved, and no property is taken. Besides, the public should know the truth!)"
It depends on how the personal information is collected; if it violates property rights to collect it, that would be illegal.
"g) The printing of money by a bank to extract value from its clients. (so long as it is not contractually forbidden)"
We have that now (fractional reserve banking).
"h) The hiring of a second party to destroy property of a third party. Only the second party commits a crime, while the first does not."
This is conspiracy to commit a crime, and also would be illegal in any sane society.
"We should be careful not to be overzealous in interpreting free market ethics, or to assume that free market ethics is the only valid ethical system."
Libertarianism is *NOT* an ethical system at all, it's a political system.
Published: October 3, 2009 3:11 PM
Luke M
Brian Macker,
Nonsense. One can also violate property rights by endangerment. For example, your next door neighbor might decide to start storing dynamite on his property right next to your house.
If your next door neighbour stored some volatile substance in their home I think one could certainly argue they were violating the non-aggression axiom as the possession of this material constitutes a real danger. You would be entitled to seek an injunction because, in your dynamite example, I consider that to be an implicit threat as it has the potential to harm me and/or violate my property rights.
How do you define ‘endangerment,’ though? If I get into an argument with someone and they give me a look I don’t like, am I endangered? What about if I know someone is a karate expert. They could deliver a lethal blow... Does that mean their very presence violates my rights?
Be careful here. If you are going to say untrue bad things then it is fraud. You are then committing a fraud that interferes with the victims right to free association. In the same way as if you disrupted a theatrical play by shouting fire, even if it isn't crowded.
What? Saying untrue ‘bad’ things is fraud? Firstly, wouldn’t you want distinguish between statements of fact and a subjective evaluation or opinion? How does it violate the person’s right to free association? And what does ‘bad’ mean anyway?
If someone is going to commit blackmail, would they not typically be in the possession of evidence to substantiate their claims? Wouldn’t the transference of this be a part of the contract between the two parties?
Suppose there is a parent who has an adopted child who wishes to keep this secret until they are an independent adult. Suppose this is what the blackmailer learns and threatens to divulge in return for money. Exactly what value has the blackmailer produced in this case? How is this not coercion? I think it is clearly coercion in the sense of "Do what I want or something bad will happen to you due to my actions".
As previous posters have mentioned, the blackmailer has the right to divulge this information without demanding anything in return - so why should it be illegal when there is a demand for remuneration?
You claim in this adopted child example that that is a case of coercion because something ‘bad’ will result if the blackmailer spills the beans. But as I asked before, what does ‘bad’ mean? Who gets to determine this and when or how? Any piece of information could be considered ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depending on the particular individual. Perhaps the child would benefit from knowing that his parents are not his birth-parents? How do you know it wouldn’t?
The value the blackmailer is creating is certain knowledge not becoming known to certain individual/s. If it has no value, the blackmailee will not pay up. If it does have value, the blackmailee may pay the blackmailer to stay quite.
Next think you know your neighbor will be asking you to pay for him not to play his stereo outside, and not to paint his house bright purple, and not to put a bird feeder right next to your driveway (so the birds don't crap on your car), etc.
In these examples, though, it is possible to make the case that there are property rights violations occurring. These are different to cases involving blackmail.
Allowing blackmail means that some people will be attracted to the profession of destroying value for others, which is a totally unproductive activity.
Destroying value in what?! A person’s reputation? If you read Walter Block’s book, I’m sure you know he (and I’m in agreement with him) argues that we cannot ‘own’ our reputation because our reputation exists solely in the minds of other individuals and we can’t own other people’s thoughts.
I think your prostitute entrapping a married man example is weak. To me, if anything, that seems like a good reason why blackmail should be legalized. If a man knew he could be legally blackmailed by a female whom he decides to sleep with, he may very well think twice about cheating on his wife..
Published: October 3, 2009 3:15 PM
EnEm
geoih......I don't understand what you are trying to say. But let me make what I was saying a little simpler: Whether the information you have on someone happens to be the truth or not, if you use it to extort money, exact revenge, defame the victim's character or make a payback of some kind........IT'S STILL BLACKMAIL AND IT'S A CRIME!!!
Published: October 3, 2009 3:33 PM
Russ
Brian Macker wrote:
"Once you allow payment to prevent such behavior you are creating an incentive for a breakdown in civil society. Next think you know your neighbor will be asking you to pay for him not to play his stereo outside, and not to paint his house bright purple, and not to put a bird feeder right next to your driveway (so the birds don't crap on your car), etc."
Would you blackmail your neighbors in this manner? If not, why not? I'm assuming your answer will be something along the lines of "I'm not suicidal enough to want to constantly antagonize people who know where I live". That's probably why most people wouldn't do such things.
I got in a spat with my neighbor not too long ago about her dog barking. I could tell (by the insults she hurled my way) that she doesn't think much of me. But nonetheless, she now puts a training collar on her dog (the kind that shocks it when it barks) when she lets it out. Why did she do that. I'm assuming it's not because she likes me, or because she thinks putting the collar on her dog when she lets it out is reasonable, but because she quite sensibly doesn't want to have the person living next door really pissed off at her.
I think this is why civil society would not break down if blackmail were made legal. There would maybe be a short spate of assholes getting themselves killed or their house burned down or whatever, and then things would go back to normal.
Published: October 3, 2009 3:41 PM
Jay Lakner
**********
Suppose there is a parent who has an adopted child who wishes to keep this secret until they are an independent adult. Suppose this is what the blackmailer learns and threatens to divulge in return for money. Exactly what value has the blackmailer produced in this case? How is this not coercion? I think it is clearly coercion in the sense of "Do what I want or something bad will happen to you due to my actions". Clearly the damages caused by the blackmailer are not due to any form of restitution or pursuit of justice, so that cannot be used to argue that this is not justified coercion.
**********
My compliments to Brian Macker for this very clever example. It certainly appeals to the reader's emotions and makes one stop and think.
However, on deeper thought, it still does not prove that blackmail is a form of coercion.
The blackmailer proposes a voluntary contract in which his/her obligations involve not to release certain information.
But what harm does this information do? You might argue that the emotional harm to the involved parties are psychologically damaging and can lead detrimental changes to their lives.
But who exactly is at fault if the release of a lie causes harm? The person who reveals the lie? Or the person who started the lie and created a situation whereby its release would lead to emotional pain?
In the example you gave, one could argue that it was a poor decision to keep the child's adoption secret in the first place. One could argue that the parents were the ones who created a potentially emotionally harmful situation to begin with.
**********
Just because someone is willing to give money in exchange for some behavior doesn't mean the act is not criminal. There are all sorts of behavior that people can engage in that will destroy value for others that those others would be willing to pay for, and which do not involve force or fraud, or are generally considered criminal. Once you allow payment to prevent such behavior you are creating an incentive for a breakdown in civil society. Next think you know your neighbor will be asking you to pay for him not to play his stereo outside, and not to paint his house bright purple, and not to put a bird feeder right next to your driveway (so the birds don't crap on your car), etc.
**********
Very entertaining examples. Also very good ones. I'll look at them one by one.
The bird feeder next to the driveway is a straight forward example of property rights being violated. The blackmailer is threatening an action that will very likely result in the damage another's property. This is a threat to indirectly use force to damage another's property. This is coercion.
Hearing is a physical interaction. Playing music sends vibrational waves through the air that vibrates the eardrums of anyone who hears it. Playing music loudly such that it broadcasts over a neighbor's private property can be viewed as a direct violation of that owner's property rights. Threatening to physically vibrate another person's eardrums can be classified as physical force. This is coercion.
Threatening to paint your house bright purple is a more difficult one to debunk. I rather like this example as it's about as extreme as you can get. Technically speaking, sight is also a physical process. One could make the argument that the photons of light reflecting off a bright purple house onto another person's property is an infringement of property rights if the owner objects. I draw the parallel with someone who choses to cover their house with flashing colored lights which could potentially cause epileptic fits in anyone who sees it.
Therefore, as extreme as it might be, threatening to paint your house bright purple IS a threat to use physical force.
Are you absolutely sure that it is, in fact, possible for someone to engage in a behaviour to another's detriment that does not in some way involve force or fraud?
Published: October 3, 2009 3:48 PM
Brian Macker
Shay,
Me: "There is no way to enforce that contract either."
You: "If I make a contract with someone involving a secret project, are you saying I can't include a clause about keeping quiet about the project?"
There is no fiduciary relationship between a blackmailer and a victim. The victim isn't paying the money because he trusts him to keep his word. He sees little choice. The behavior of the blackmailer already shows he is not to be trusted.
The contract you are talking about does not rest solely on the secret, it has other aspects that are the true purpose of the relationship.
One thing is not the same as another merely because they share a single attribute. Gambling on craps is not investing just because they both share the attribute of risking ones money.
Here you are making a contract about a project not a secret. Presumably there is a reason to keep that secret that benefits you both. Assuming it's not a criminal conspiracy then it's a perfectly valid contract that can be enforced.
This is a contract with a level playing field of two voluntary participants trying to create increased value which both can have shares in. This is quite unlike blackmail.
"If the blackmailer had changed his mind and simply released the information, without any option of payment to keep quiet, it would have still affected the victim."
Lots of things affect other people. Manufacturing a bad situation in order to bleed money out of them is coercive. If there is a good reason to release the information then they should. If the only purpose is to shake down the victim, which is in fact proven by the decision to approach the victim, then it is coercion.
The destructive situation is thus manufactured by the blackmailer, even if he was not the originator of the secret. It's the divulgence of the secret by him that is caused directly by an act of the blackmailer. Thus he is responsible for causing it. It is unnecessary damage done to the victim with the purpose of effecting the victims behavior.
People don't have some general right to charge other people money for not revealing embarrassing private information. As I said before, granting such a right would lead to the manufacture of embarrassing situations, and exploitation of those who are social pariahs for perfectly legal private behavior.
I'll give you a real world example. A girlfriend of my sister had told her that she had been raped. Turns out that what happened was a boyfriend she was not ready to sleep with had convinced her to take nude pictures for his benefit and promised her that it was private. Not sure if he did this when she was drunk or not. He then turned around and threatened her with exposing the pictures if she didn't sleep with him. She complied.
Yes, I consider this a crime even though each separate act up to and excluding the blackmail wasn't. It's the combination that is criminal. It's not merely bad behavior. It was rape. He used fear to get her to have sex with her like any rapist. Likewise the garden variety blackmailer uses fear in order to rob money. Instead of "your money or your life" it's "your money or your reputation, your family, or your job."
You guys are just falling into a fallacy like zeno's paradox. Sure to get from one place to another you have to move and infinite number of smaller distances but as a whole if those distances are covered in proportionately less time you will still get there. Sometimes the whole is greater than the apparent parts.
It's not a crime to cause fear in others. It is not a crime to freely exchange with others. Yet it is a crime to exchange money for the alleviation of fear one creates.
You can carry a gun if you want. You can take it out. That may cause fear in someone else, and that too isn't a crime. What you can't do is say to someone while causing them such fear is "Give me fifty bucks and I'll put my gun away".
I read about and have though about libertarianism over decades and there are several areas where it's precepts as defined by certain thinkers is inadequate.
The idea that everything can be boiled down to force or fraud is ridiculous. There are other forms of trespass such as endangerment and the causing of fear in others that are not properly covered by such simple rules.
.
Published: October 3, 2009 3:55 PM
Russ
EnEm wrote:
"...if you use it [information] to *extort* [Russ' emphasis] money, exact revenge, defame the victim's character or make a payback of some kind........IT'S STILL BLACKMAIL AND IT'S A CRIME!!!"
You are suffering from the same confusion that Gil apparently is. Blackmail is not extortion. Yes, blackmail may now be a crime. So what? That's not what's under discussion. What's being discussed is, should it be a crime?
Published: October 3, 2009 3:56 PM
Brian Macker
"Are you absolutely sure that it is, in fact, possible for someone to engage in a behaviour to another's detriment that does not in some way involve force or fraud?"
Sure I already gave the example of storing dynamite next to your neighbor, on your own property.
I have a bush next to my driveway that the birds like to eat the berries from and shit on my car. What if it was my neighbors car. Do I have some kind of obligation to cut down every piece of vegetation that might feed a bird that shits on his car? If that's not an example of force, and blackmail is legal then why would the treat of me specifically planting such a bush be a problem?
I'm sure the pollen from my pine tree floats over and ruins peoples cars. Yes, I also like to feed birds at my bird feeder and I'm sure that attracts more birds than normal and increases the likelihood of bird poo on neighbors picnic tables, cars, and the like.
I didn't however ask them to pay me not to put up the bird feeder. I wasn't doing it specifically for the destructive effect on my neighbors. There is a reason why criminal law has the idea of "mens rea" or guilty mind.
Obviously in the one case any externalities are mere side effects of productive behavior, such as having a cherry tree, a hedge, or the pleasure of bird watching.
In the other case the mere mention of the quid pro quo of blackmail is evidence of an intentionally harm done for the main purpose of benefiting from the resulting damage to others. It shows a guilty mind. This alone is something that can convert an innocent act to a crime.
Published: October 3, 2009 4:20 PM
Russ
Brian Macker:
When a woman is raped, she is subjected to a choice of sex or physical harm, through absolutely no fault of her own. Your sister's girlfriend was subjected to a choice of sex, or suffering severe embarrassment and loss of reputation as a result of an extremely stupid decision that *was* her fault. Granted, the guy who did it was a sleazebag. But sleazebag or no, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere if the girl didn't voluntarily pose naked. Very, very foolish. It's like walking into a waterfront bar and yelling "Sailors are a buncha sissies!" Yeah, assault is wrong, but if you ask for it it's bound to happen anyway.
"You can carry a gun if you want. You can take it out. That may cause fear in someone else, and that too isn't a crime"
Actually, causing fear in others by pullling out a gun is a crime, in a lot of places. It's called brandishing, and it recognizes that by waving a gun around you're making a not so subtle threat to use deadly force.
Published: October 3, 2009 5:07 PM
Jay Lakner
**********
I'll give you a real world example. A girlfriend of my sister had told her that she had been raped. Turns out that what happened was a boyfriend she was not ready to sleep with had convinced her to take nude pictures for his benefit and promised her that it was private. Not sure if he did this when she was drunk or not. He then turned around and threatened her with exposing the pictures if she didn't sleep with him. She complied.
**********
This is not an example of blackmail.
The release of the photos is a violation of his contractual agreement to keep them private.
The man is threatening to commit fraud if she does not sleep with him.
That's extortion, not blackmail.
I think you need to be a bit more careful not to confuse examples of blackmail with extortion.
**********
Sure I already gave the example of storing dynamite next to your neighbor, on your own property.
**********
This is not behaviour that detriments others until an actual accident occurs.
If an accident does occur, then the person storing the dynamite will come under criminal charges for reckless behaviour. Not to mention reimbursing the innocent party for damaged property and possible manslaughter charges if people were killed.
**********
I have a bush next to my driveway that the birds like to eat the berries from and shit on my car. What if it was my neighbors car. Do I have some kind of obligation to cut down every piece of vegetation that might feed a bird that shits on his car? If that's not an example of force, and blackmail is legal then why would the treat of me specifically planting such a bush be a problem?
I'm sure the pollen from my pine tree floats over and ruins peoples cars. Yes, I also like to feed birds at my bird feeder and I'm sure that attracts more birds than normal and increases the likelihood of bird poo on neighbors picnic tables, cars, and the like.
**********
I should point out here that you have long gone past the very definition of the word Blackmail with most of your examples.
I answered the ones in an earlier post because I wanted to point out that it is not possible to engage in a behaviour to another's detriment that does not in some way involve force or fraud.
I was simply demonstrating that everything can be reduced to property rights.
Let's get back on topic. From Wiki:
"Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand made upon the victim is met."
You can't blackmail someone with the threat of planting bushes so that birds can poop on their car ... simply because then it would not fall into the category of blackmail.
The only examples that fall under the heading of blackmail are those whereby one threatens to reveal the truth.
So far only 1 of your examples has been an actual blackmail example. (the adopted child)
Published: October 3, 2009 5:35 PM
Ball
If he sold the exclusive to a tabloid instead, it would have been perfectly legal.
Funny how that works!
Published: October 3, 2009 5:49 PM
Peter
If blackmail/extortion was legal think of gangsters finding out personal identifiction tidbit like your credit card number, your bank card PIN, etc.! "If you don't pay we'll take out loans in your name and raid your bank account and generally ruin your credit rating or hand the information to those who will!"
What's to stop them doing that now? "Gangsters" implies that they're criminals anyway!
Published: October 3, 2009 6:25 PM
Jay Lakner
The arguments in favour of blackmail laws so far have been very weak.
I've noticed that there does seem to be 2 distinctively different categories of blackmail.
1. The "victims" are responsible for setting up a situation where the release of certain information is potentially harmful to them.
2. The "victims" are not responsible for setting up a situation where the release of certain information is potentially harmful to them.
So far every attempt to justify blackmail has been with examples of the 1st kind. David Letterman's case falls into this category.
But what of the 2nd type?
I'll give a quick example:
A woman is raped. The tragic event was due to no fault of her own and was completely unavoidable. Although the perpetrator was caught and convicted, she managed to keep the entire incident a secret. If this information was ever released to friends, workmates, family or the public, it would cause considerable emotional harm to her, not to mention the general disarray it would cause to her life. Someone finds out and requests payment from her for their silence.
Would this example not be justification to enact laws preventing blackmail?
One might argue that revealing this information is an invasion of the person's privacy. In that case, it would be illegal to reveal the information under any circumstances. However, what about freedom of speech?
I'm curious to know others' opinions on this.
Published: October 3, 2009 6:29 PM
Trey Grayson
Skip is saying that Blackmail should be legal.
Tracy
Published: October 3, 2009 6:33 PM
Peter
Oh, BTW, I love the word "identifiction" -- just noticed that!
Published: October 3, 2009 6:43 PM
Russ
Ball wrote:
"If he sold the exclusive to a tabloid instead, it would have been perfectly legal."
And if he simply spread the information around the water cooler, it would have only been gossip!
Jay Lakner wrote:
"This [Brian's story about his sister's girlfriend] is not an example of blackmail.
The release of the photos is a violation of his contractual agreement to keep them private.
The man is threatening to commit fraud if she does not sleep with him.
That's extortion, not blackmail."
Hmmm.... let's see here. The guy says "Let me get a few photos of you, and I won't do anything with them except ... look at them in private." The girl agrees. I can see how that could be construed as a verbal contract. So he gets the pictures, and then breaks the terms of the contract to get sex. That's deceptively making a contract he doesn't intend to keep for purposes of personal gain, so I can see how that is fraud. Extortion, though... extortion is where you *threaten* to violate somebody's rights unless they give you what you want. In this case, the girl's rights were already violated, so I'm not sure it's extortion. But since the guy actually violated the girl's rights instead of just threatening to, this may actually be worse than extortion.
But at any rate, I stand corrected. The girl's rights were violated, and the sleazeball guy is richly deserving of being the guest of honor at a sock party.
I still stand by my statement that the girl was really fricking stupid, though. Giving somebody that kind of leverage over you is tantamount to asking for it.
Published: October 3, 2009 8:24 PM
Luke M
Jay Lakner,
How did this (very twisted) individual acquire this information about this woman? Does he have any evidence to substantiate his claims? If so, how did he acquire it?
Published: October 3, 2009 10:01 PM
Luke M
Brian Macker,
In answer to the question, "Are you absolutely sure that it is, in fact, possible for someone to engage in a behaviour to another's detriment that does not in some way involve force or fraud?" you again cited the dynamite example but I addressed that in my response to you. Depending on the circumstances, I think this is a case where you can certainly argue that there IS a threat of force. You don't have to wait for your next-door neighbour's house to (potentially) explode for you to do something about it!
Published: October 3, 2009 10:10 PM
Gil
What's wrong about someone blackmailing someone else by saying "I found out your credit card numbers and it you don't pay me then I'll release the information"? Suppose they don't commit any crime obtaining the numbers - how are they committing any crime?
Published: October 3, 2009 10:48 PM
Russ
Gil,
The threat is obviously that the credit cards will be *used*, which would be theft. If you give away credit card numbers, and the credit is stolen, that would make you an accessory to theft before the fact, wouldn't it? That is morally equivalent to theft. That would make threatening to give the numbers away equivalent to threatening theft, a violation of rights, which would make it extortion, not simple blackmail.
Turnabout is fair play... If the guy who attempted to blackmail Letterman didn't violate any of Letterman's rights, how does the act qualify as criminal?
Published: October 3, 2009 11:12 PM
Gil
How so Russ? A gun retailer isn't responsible as to what the buyer will do thereafter. The person who sells the credit card numbers doesn't have to know what the buyer will do thereafter either. Is someone who releases someone's credit card information without informing the owner committing a crime?
Published: October 4, 2009 12:01 AM
Peter
Is someone who releases someone's credit card information without informing the owner committing a crime?
I can't see how. So, yes, the "blackmail" for credit card numbers should be legal.
But if someone did that to me, I wouldn't pay him; I'd just inform the bank and get a new card! Why is this a problem, again?
Published: October 4, 2009 1:32 AM
Manestor
I didn't read all the comments but i saw someone asking what austrian ecnomics had to do with all that. Then I remembered some lines from Rothbard's Man, Economy & State under Direct Exchange, paragraph 13, Enforcement Against Invasion of Property
"In a free society, as we have stated, every man is a selfowner.
No man is allowed to own the body or mind of another,
that being the essence of slavery. This condition completely
overthrows the basis for a law of defamation, i.e., libel (written
defamation) or slander (oral defamation). For the basis of outlawing
defamation is that every man has a “property in his own
reputation” and that therefore any malicious or untruthful
attack on him or his character (or even more, a truthful attack!)
injures his reputation and therefore should be punished. However,
a man has no such objective property as “reputation.” His
reputation is simply what others think of him, i.e., it is purely
a function of the subjective thoughts of others. But a man cannot
own the minds or thoughts of others. Therefore, I cannot invade a man’s property right by criticizing him publicly. Further,
since I do not own others’ minds, either, I cannot force
anyone else to think less of the man because of my criticism *49. "
And that note 49 says :
"*49. Similarly, blackmail would not be illegal in the free society. For
blackmail is the receipt of money in exchange for the service of not
publicizing certain information about the other person. No violence or
threat of violence to person or property is involved."
I have just started to study austrian economics and I don't really know what to think about the problem of reputation owership. Rothbard's argument is interesting but there might be other views among austrians.
Published: October 4, 2009 4:26 AM
mpolzkill
Manestor,
And you reminded me of Mark Twain:
"In our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and the prudence never to practice either of them."
Of course, that was a long time ago.
Published: October 4, 2009 9:22 AM
Peter Surda
> If blackmail/extortion was legal think of gangsters
> finding out personal identifiction tidbit like your
> credit card number, your bank card PIN, etc.!
This already happens very often, but it is a poor candidate for blackmail. If you threaten someone with this, (s)he just rings her bank telling them the card/pin was compromised. Typically, if you do this soon enough after finding it out, the contract with the bank states that you are protected from the damage. You may need to pay a small blocking fee. The bank issues you with a new card/pin and everything's over.
Stolen credit card numbers sell for ridiculously low (like under a dollar), and remember that illegality drives the costs up.
Published: October 4, 2009 9:52 AM
matt
can we get this OFF the top of the mises blog after 2 days??
Published: October 4, 2009 12:35 PM
anon
The danger of blackmail is an interesting question. While I believe this behavior should have a line of criminality, I do feel you that there is a point in legalizing the sale of silence.
**Chews moar cud...
Published: October 4, 2009 1:52 PM
Russ
@Gil:
I won't answer any more questions, until you answer mine. It's your turn now...
If the guy who attempted to blackmail Letterman didn't violate any of Letterman's rights, how does the act qualify as criminal?
Published: October 4, 2009 3:03 PM
lester
libertarian bullshit- oh brother, so you want to regulate trading but you want legalized blackmail. now I've heard everything
Published: October 4, 2009 3:47 PM
RWW
Still no one has answered my question. Very telling.
Published: October 4, 2009 9:56 PM
Jay Lakner
lester said:
**********
libertarian bullshit- oh brother, so you want to regulate trading but you want legalized blackmail. now I've heard everything
**********
Regulate trading???
Are you a troll?
Are you even aware that libertarians want a removal of ALL regulations on all trading?
Published: October 4, 2009 11:52 PM
Gil
Gee, RWW, if someone posts various personal information numbers on his website that he found at the local tip because a lot of people don't properly shred private documents then has he committed a crime? Since I.P. is deemed false and information can't be owned then - no, of course not.
Russ - I do believe you'll find my answer in my previous posts. So, how is waving a gun in someone's face affecting that person's rights? The gun-waving is hinting he may use force but then again maybe he won't and is just fooling around. By the same token the blackmailer is threatening to release information unless money is exchanged - is this a crime? What of the key word - 'threatening'? A transaction caused by blackmail isn't free trade as one party did not voluntarily trade but was coerced.
Published: October 5, 2009 12:50 AM
Jay Lakner
Gil,
I'm guessing your definition of "coerce" is somewhat different than the libertarian definition.
Also, there is nothing wrong with threats ... as long as there is no threat of force or fraud.
"Give me 25c or I'll shave my arms!" isn't much of a threat now is it? But it still is a threat.
Threats are used all the time in bargaining. "Take $1000 off the price of that car or I'll take my business elsewhere!" is quite often seen in used car sales. Did I coerce the car salesman?
Most of the time a direct threat is counterproductive, but in some situations it is the best way to negotiate.
My point: Threat does not equal coercion.
"Give me 2 million dollars or I'll tell everyone something you don't want them to know!" is similarly not coercion.
There is nothing stopping the blackmailer from secretly releasing the information anyway. The blackmailee should reject the proposition on the grounds that the contract terms are unenforceable and just accept the fact that his little secret is out in the open. (Maybe sell his lie to a tabloid before the blackmailer has a chance to!)
The "threat" in this case was a simply a form of negotiation appropriate to the circumstances. (like in a used car lot)
Published: October 5, 2009 6:47 AM
Fephisto
Who the crap cares about this celebrity news?
In fact, why is it even called 'celebrity news'? The term itself is an oxymoron.
Published: October 5, 2009 7:07 AM
Shay
Fephisto, we don't care that it's a celebrity. It's a current story that many people have heard about, and thus a good one to look at from a libertarian viewpoint. For whatever reason, other people have more interest in current stories, so it's a good starting point for being exposed to libertarian principles. See the above 100+ replies for evidence of this.
Published: October 5, 2009 8:47 AM
Gil
"''Give me 2 million dollars or I'll tell everyone something you don't want them to know!' is similarly not coercion. - J. Lakner
How the eff not? If it is not threatening in any manner than the blackmailer would have no leverage. If a guy dares a man to pay up or he'll exposed the affair to the man's wife - how is this not damaging? If he tells the wife and the couple split and they go to court for child custody and so forth - how has damage not been wrought? Does the guy just whistle as he walks away saying "it isn't my fault"? Golly, another scenario would be a mugger 'blackmailing' someone for money by using a banana under his coat - he can't actually do any harm.
Published: October 5, 2009 8:55 AM
Nick
Gil, the key word is "force"
In the first scenario, the only threat is releasing information that will *potentially* damage the reputation of the blackmailed. There is no force involved here and the responsibility for any consequences that stem from the release of that information belong not to the blackmailer, but the blackmailed who *caused* that damaging information to have value in the first place.
The mugger is implying force and violence regardless of what's hidden under his coat which is why the potential victim would be within his or her rights to shoot the mugger in self-defense.
Releasing true information to the public is not force or fraud. Asking for payment to *not* release it also does not involve force or fraud.
Threatening to shoot someone with a hidden gun - even if it's a banana - is both force and fraud when you think about it...
Published: October 5, 2009 10:15 AM
Luke M
Gil,
Jay's comment seemed pretty clear to me but you didn't seem to grasp it. A threat is not ipso facto unlawful, it depends on what you're threatening. There are two kinds of threats you can issue, you can either threaten to:
1) Do something you have a right to do
2) Do something you don't have a right to do
Under category 1 we have such things as: walking away from a salesmen if you don't like the deal on offer, shaving your arms, not being friends with someone, and spreading information about someone provided you had no prior agreement *not* to do this and acquired the information legally (this caveat is to ensure confidentiality agreements, contracts, etc).
Under category 2 we have: rape, theft, murder, and so on.
Therefore it is permissible to demand payment in return for threatening to do category 1 things but obviously not category 2. If we were at a bar one night and you told me you cheated on your wife - do I have a right to tell her or not? Obviously I do have a right to tell her. Do I not then also have a right to demand money in return for staying quiet?
You say "if it is not threatening in any manner than the blackmailer would have no leverage" - but the 'leverage' depends on the situation and the context. Suppose you were going to tell your wife you cheated on her anyway. Instantly my leverage evaporates.
In your example you're trying to have us empathize with the poor fellow who is being blackmailed. The evil blackmailer is demanding payment and if the 'victim' doesn't pay up, he's going to release information that will very likely cause immense damage. No doubt it could cause great pain.. But this is not the fault of the blackmailer - it's the fault of the man who decided to cheat on his wife. The victim here is the wife and kids, not the man being blackmailed. It was their trust that was betrayed and the cheating husband has only himself to blame.
Your banana under the coat example is ridiculous and suggests you really can't seem to understand the distinction between threats that are category 1 or 2. If the person is a *mugger* and is holding a banana under his coat, what is he threatening? He's obviously not threatening to shoot them with his banana, he's implying he's holding a gun, therefore it comes under category 2.
Published: October 5, 2009 10:50 AM
Randy
Wow! I've spent more time reading this thread than I've ever spent watching Letterman.
Published: October 5, 2009 11:25 AM
Shay
The fundamental point here is the lack of use of force. Force is the only way to infringe on a person's liberty, by harming the person, or harming/stealing his property, thus force is only justified in defending from such uses of force. Note that this view doesn't dismiss attacks that don't involve force, it simply says that they must be dealt with in some manner that doesn't involve force. Societies have plenty of mechanisms that meet this, like social disapproval, reputation, ostracism, etc.
Since blackmail doesn't involve the use of force, how is force justified in defending against it?
Published: October 5, 2009 1:21 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Thedo: "I'd suggest reading Walter Block's "Defending the Undefendable," if you haven't, for a defense of blackmail."
Block has several pieces on this here--see the section "Blackmail."
My view on this is as follows: blackmail should not be illegal. That said, I don't blame Letterman for calling this guy's bluff or getting the cops involved, and I don't feel sorry for this guy one whit.
Further, I think Letterman handled it great--he came clean, and from what I can see he didn't do anything all that wrong--maybe seedy and immoral, but not unlibertarian; the worst he did was perhaps violate unjust state sexual harassment laws.
Published: October 5, 2009 2:09 PM
Russ
Gil wrote:
"Russ - I do believe you'll find my answer in my previous posts."
Well, yes and no. It's clear that you consider blackmail to be "coercion". What's not clear, at least to me, is *how* blackmail can be coercion, since coercion is defined as the use or threat of *physical force*, or as the violation or threatened violation of rights (these two definition are equivalent, as far as I can see). This is what you just don't seem to get. Blackmail doesn't involve physical force, and it doesn't (necessarily) involve the violation of rights of the blackmailee. So how is coercion involved? Just because the blackmailee find the whole affair unpleasant, that doesn't make it coercion. I find paying my mortgage payments unpleasant, and my bank implicitly threatens that they will take my house away if I don't continue to make them. So is my mortgage bank blackmailing me?
"So, how is waving a gun in someone's face affecting that person's rights? The gun-waving is hinting he may use force but then again maybe he won't and is just fooling around."
If someone is waving a gun in another person's face, I would say that that the second person is reasonable in making the assumption that the first person is threating to shoot. Shooting a person, or threatening to do so, is coercion.
I'll also answer your credit card info question. The credit card info has absolutely no purpose for another person besides accessing the owner's money and stealing it. So, I think it's reasonable to assume that a person who is selling such information knows that it will be used for the purpose of stealing (it really has no other use that would be worth paying for), and is hence an accomplice or conspirator. A gun retailer is selling a gun that has a lot of purposes, some of the them legitimate, so I don't see the two cases as equivalent. Now, if a gun owner sold a gun to Mr. X, knowing that he was going to murder Mr. Y with it, I would consider the seller guilty as an accessory before the fact. Likewise, if he told Mr. Y, "Pay me money, or I'll sell a gun to Mr. X and he'll murder you with it", that is a threat of violation of rights, and hence is extortion.
"By the same token the blackmailer is threatening to release information unless money is exchanged - is this a crime? What of the key word - 'threatening'? A transaction caused by blackmail isn't free trade as one party did not voluntarily trade but was coerced."
The key word is not "threatening". The key words are "violation of rights". A blackmailer is threatening to commit an act which does *not* violate the rights of another person (i.e. the act is not a crime). If committing the act is not a crime, then it makes no sense that merely threatening to commit the act should be a crime. Without the threat of an actual violation of rights, there is no coercion, in the libertarian sense of the word. In other words, threatening to do something that another finds unpleasant is not necessarily coercion, unless the unpleasantness involves a violation of rights. Now, how does somebody telling the world that David Letterman cheated on his wife violate Letterman's rights? It doesn't, so it's not coercion!
Extortion, on the other hand, is threatening to commit an act which *does* violate the rights of another person. Hence, it's coercion, hence, it should be illegal.
Published: October 5, 2009 3:26 PM
Russ
Stephan Kinsella wrote:
"...from what I can see he didn't do anything all that wrong--maybe seedy and immoral, but not unlibertarian..."
Doesn't "wrong" *mean* "immoral"???
"...the worst he did was perhaps violate unjust state sexual harassment laws."
No, the worst he did was cheat on his wife. That may not be a violation of rights, but it is immoral.
Published: October 5, 2009 7:28 PM
Gil
". . . the worst he did was perhaps violate unjust state sexual harassment laws." - S. Kinsella.
How do you know the sexual harassment laws are 'unjust'?
Published: October 5, 2009 8:24 PM
RWW
Gil, pretending to answer my question is worse than ignoring it, and also more indicative of the shaky foundations of your position. Now, would you care to answer my question, or continue to dodge it?
Published: October 5, 2009 10:08 PM
Brian Macker
Luke,
"But this is not the fault of the blackmailer - it's the fault of the man who decided to cheat on his wife. The victim here is the wife and kids, not the man being blackmailed. It was their trust that was betrayed and the cheating husband has only himself to blame."
What crocodile tears you shed.
Yes, the wife/husband and kids are victims, perhaps depending on circumstances because the world is complex, and your blackmailer wants to victimize them again by bleeding their provider for a mistake he/she made.
Walter Block has you guys thinking like moral degenerates. It's certainly the fault of the blackmailer that he's injecting himself into a situation where he can profit from that damage he can inflict on one side or the other. He bears responsibility for his actions which will cause harm to one party or the other.
Now think a little more maturely. Suppose you did know that somebody was cheating on their spouse. Are you really so naive to believe that telling the spouse would be the best thing to do for the family? Many times it would not. Sometimes it is just a one time mistake, etc.
Once the blackmailer decides to take money for whatever secret it is is clear that he is acting in his own interests and not in the best interests of any of the parties involved.
I know it's hard for libertarians to understand but everything does not boil down to force or fraud. It's more complex than that.
I had to laugh when one guy here didn't understand that one can disprove such a shallow viewpoint without replacing it with another. I don't have to define exactly what endangerment entails in order to show that a rigid claim such is this is false. The whole point is that things aren't black and white.
Maybe if I have time I'll respond, but you guys just aren't getting it. You are addressing what are easy aspects but things are not so clear cut.
The world doesn't cleave so easily on the moral and legal borders you think. Libertarians are all for private courts and their decisions but in this case common law came out on the side of outlawing blackmail.
The definition of force does not include endangerment in my experience reading libertarian literature. I've read quite a bit having done so for decades. Yet the minute I bring up this objection, all of the sudden the word seems to cover whatever the believer thinks is reasonable.
It has not been my experience that one can deduce reality from first principles. The world is deep not shallow in this regard. Even when you have good approximations to how things work at lower levels there is emergent behavior that is both surprising and unpredictable. This is precisely because of the complexity involved.
Given the rules of quantum physics it isn't obvious if a honey badger can whoop an American badger in a fight or not. Yet both are completely describe by quantum physics because they are quantum entities.
The rule of morality and law are complex and the boundary between negative and positive rights in not some clear straight line. It's more like a fractal.
Blackmailers by definition in a position where they are either taking money to allow the continuance of harm to one party, or actively harming the other party.
There are situations where one could coerce that do not involve the blackmailer extracting money. Yo could say, "Stop it or I'm telling your wife." or the even more mature "Lots of people know what you are doing and if you don't stop your wife is bound to find out." The second is more mature because it achieves the same result without the threat, and guess what it doesn't even have to be true. Yes, morally you can lie in this situation.
BTW, stop attacking small portions of the anti-blackmail position that you think are weakest. Attack the strong points. I didn't see any counter argument to the claim that blackmail creates incentives to manufacture situations, other than the claim that such problems would be solved via murder.
The one argument was that prostitutes wouldn't entrap husbands because they'd loose business and get killed. That's total nonsense because 1) I wasn't talking about prostitutes. I was talking about women blackmailers who give the sex away for "free" and extract the costs in blackmail. 2) This type of entrapment to expose a cheating spouses without any murders. Heck there was a TV show with this theme. 3) The guy who is tricked doesn't necessarily know the woman. It's easy enough for a woman to conceal her true identity, and easy to organize with a third party to make collection.
So when blackmail is legal it won't just be prior guilty parties that get victimized. Blackmail will become a business and since it is so hard to stumble across such secrets and so much easier to manufacture situations there is a serious danger of entrapment.
Published: October 5, 2009 10:49 PM
Russ
Brian,
Jeez, most of your last post was one big ad hominem argument. We're "moral degenerates", were not "mature", were "shallow", blah blah blah. Then you give us some crap about quantum theory and fractals? Give us a break. This kind of fuzzy nonsense might work with lefties, but you're not going to win any arguments this way here.
"BTW, stop attacking small portions of the anti-blackmail position that you think are weakest. Attack the strong points."
Here's a strong point that you seem to be ignoring. If act X is not illegal, then threatening act X should not be illegal, and contingently threatening act X should not be illegal. The idea that act X is not illegal, but contingently threatening act X should be illegal, is absurd. If you want us to believe something so apparently absurd, then extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You have not supplied this. The burden of proof is on you, as I see it.
"I didn't see any counter argument to the claim that blackmail creates incentives to manufacture situations, other than the claim that such problems would be solved via murder."
I never said that murder is a solution to the problem of blackmail, I merely said that murder is one reason among many why blackmail is stupid.
As for the idea that "blackmail creates incentives to manufacture situations", my response is a resounding "So what?" If people don't want to get blackmailed, then they shouldn't do things that make them vulnerable to it. Or, they can 'fess up, like Letterman did, and take their lumps like adults.
Published: October 5, 2009 11:17 PM
Luke M
Brian,
Of course the world is complex and I wouldn't automatically deny that a cheating spouse is the villain in the relationship. But whether the cheating spouse made a one-time mistake or is a Don Juan is immaterial as to whether someone has a right to threaten exposure of their secrets if they don't give them something in exchange.
You're completely mistaken in saying that "Walter Block has you guys thinking like moral degenerates" because Walter Block (and other libertarians) are arguing purely about *the law*. Libertarianism does not tell you whether you should or should not blackmail someone only if you have the right to.
You claim that "Once the blackmailer decides to take money for whatever secret it is is clear that he is acting in his own interests and not in the best interests of any of the parties involved." But this criticism applies regardless of whether he asks for money or not! You're just criticising the position of someone who knows something that another party may not want others to know. If I reveal to everyone that you're cheating on your wife because I want to have a relationship with her - am I not acting in my self-interest and to the detriment of you and her? Does it follow, then, that it should be illegal for me to reveal a secret such as this?
I think this really comes down to you not understanding the fundamental position of libertarianism as regards the use of FORCE. You say that "Blackmailers by definition in a position where they are either taking money to allow the continuance of harm to one party, or actively harming the other party."
But what does harm mean?! Russ gave the example of having to paying his mortgage. If he doesn't pay, the bank will take his house. Clearly this would harm him. Is the bank, then, blackmailing him? Of course not, that's absurd.
Regarding your "strong" point about blackmail creating incentives to manufacture situations, I think this could create the opposite effect of what you think could occur. Husbands may very well think twice about cheating on their wives if they know they can be blackmailed. This could have the effect of reducing infidelity. If husbands do want to cheat on their wives they'd likely take extra precautions and seek out companions with the lowest chance of blackmailing them.
Again, you seem to be arguing that the cheating husband is a victim, that he's been "tricked" by the conniving adulteress etc. I say boo-hoo to him (or her, let's not just pick on guys here). If you don't want to be put in such a situation don't cheat on your spouse! If anyone's a moral degenerate here it's those who defend the 'right' of adulterers to get away with their infidelity without having to (potentially) pay a price for it..
Published: October 5, 2009 11:57 PM
Brian Macker
Russ,
"Jeez, most of your last post was one big ad hominem argument. We're "moral degenerates", were not "mature", were "shallow", blah blah blah."
I'm saying the argument itself shows a lack of moral brainpower. Anyone who thinks that a blackmailer is running a charity for the kids is thinking like a moral degenerate. I didn't argue that the person making the argument was a moral degenerate and therefore anything he says is false. The first is a valid argument and the second is an ad hominem argument. Learn the difference.
The argument was also immature in that it showed a lack of understanding that exposing an affair is not always the right thing to do in any case. That it would probably harm the kids should the victim not pay up and the truth be told. It's not something you'd necessarily do "for the kids" even if you were not a blackmailer.
Then you give us some crap about quantum theory and fractals? Give us a break. This kind of fuzzy nonsense might work with lefties, but you're not going to win any arguments this way here.
I've convinced many a person to change their opinion using such arguments. At least the smarter ones who can understand an analogy.
Sorry to tell you this but you cannot deduce all legal opinion from the phrase "force or fraud". Much more is required. For example the reasonable man test, which would go with my reference to "endangerment".
The border between what should and should not be legal is not some clear cut straight line that can be deduced from simple phrases. It is precisely because you haven't approached this with a fully critical mind that you haven't deduced this.
Exactly at what distance does my birdfeeder have to be from my neighbor before I am destroying his property? Does intention matter? Does blackmailing reveal intention?
Law has to be much broader than mere protection of negative rights. It's impossible to tell the boundary here with the bird feeder based merely on concepts of negative rights.
In actuality what happens is that such cases get decided based on convention. Some conventions work out better than others. What doesn't and can't happen in many cases is having the convention be based on negative rights.
Oh and with regards to the reasonable man test, used to decide things like endangerment. I don't think a reasonable man would think that a blackmailer is doing the wife and kids a favor by coercing money out of a cheating husband. Just my humble opinion.
BTW the definition of coerce is not what some think it is. American Heritage Dictionary: 1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel. So yes the blackmailer is coercing, making a threat. "Give me money or I'll tell your kids what you did", is most certainly a threat designed to compel an action.
"But what does harm mean?! Russ gave the example of having to paying his mortgage. If he doesn't pay, the bank will take his house. Clearly this would harm him. Is the bank, then, blackmailing him? Of course not, that's absurd."
I wasn't giving a definition of blackmail silly. I was showing that blackmail isn't a charitable institution.
I told you lions aren't herbivores, and you retort that cows aren't carnivores. Yes that is absurd. Cows are not carnivores. That doesn't mean lions are herbivores. No wonder I won't be "winning" any arguments with you.
"Husbands may very well think twice about cheating on their wives if they know they can be blackmailed."
As will anyone else who wants to do something frowned on by the majority. Like being a Jew in a Muslim country, or Nazi Germany. Or a pothead in the US. Or a tax cheat. Unless you somehow think you are going to make every law, and social convention to your personal liking in one fell swoop.
I'll perhaps consider making blackmail legal once all such unjust laws and social conventions are abandoned, which will happen when hell freezes over.
What you don't understand is that you've already "lost" the argument about fractals specifically because I could argue this far. If there were are blindingly obvious line between what should be legal and not based on "force or fraud" then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The world is full of "fuzzy nonsense". The boundary between crime and not crime is fuzzy.
"Here's a strong point that you seem to be ignoring. If act X is not illegal, then threatening act X should not be illegal, and contingently threatening act X should not be illegal. The idea that act X is not illegal, but contingently threatening act X should be illegal, is absurd."
Yet, when you ask the vast majority of people they don't think it is absurd.
It's only a strong point if we start with your unstated and yes shallow assumptions. Ayn Rand's mistakes included no philosopher has been able to show that you can deduce to any particular set of moral let alone legal set of rules.
One can take a Hayekian viewpoint and believe that laws, social institutions, and moral conventions are evolved strategies. Like evolved creatures it doesn't make much sense to assume that there is some single objectively pure set of strategies that is best. What is better depends on the competing strategies, human nature, environment, etc. Two competing strategies might be equally suitable assuming different set of conventions.
There are lots of examples of this. Even where you allow options there is a question of what should be the default rule and what should be the rule which requires a contract. In marriage should the default be a 50/50 split regardless of what assets were brought into the marriage, with prenuptial agreement required otherwise, or should it be the other way around? Does, negative rights, and "force or fraud" have anything to say on this. Not really. The convention could be either, but something has to be "the law".
This is exactly similar to issues in math with Godel theorem. There are statements that cannot be proven within a system either way given certain axioms. For those statements you can choose to assign them values as truths or falsehoods and come up with different systems. Euclidian vs. non-euclidian geometry depends on such a choice. Do parallel lines intersect or not.
You are trying to derive law from libertarian principles but it is well known that libertarians are quite fractious in their beliefs. There are both pro and anti abortion libertarians. Hard to square with the idea that everything is derived from "force or fraud".
What about the other assumptions that have been accepted? Assume fetuses are humans with rights and you get one set of beliefs and do the opposite another. Both compatible with "force and fraud".
Published: October 6, 2009 2:36 AM
Jay Lakner
Brian Macker,
I can imagine that you would be quite an adversary in an oral debate, but in print people have the time to analyse your statements and decide whether or not they are logical.
Your rant would probably get applause as a politcal speech or probably turn a jury in your favour in a court of law. However a deeper inspection of the content of your post reveals common fallacies, inappropriate assumptions and a general avoidance of the key issue.
**********
Now think a little more maturely. Suppose you did know that somebody was cheating on their spouse. Are you really so naive to believe that telling the spouse would be the best thing to do for the family? Many times it would not. Sometimes it is just a one time mistake, etc.
**********
So are you advocating that not only blackmail should be illegal but also that revealing any information about another person should also be illegal?
Do you want to completely outlaw free speech?
Do you want to enforce strict rules for what information people are allowed to spread?
Do you wish to legislate morality?
If so, whose morals are we to enforce? Does it have to be a moral framework based on your personal beliefs?
**********
Once the blackmailer decides to take money for whatever secret it is is clear that he is acting in his own interests and not in the best interests of any of the parties involved.
**********
I think this is where we get to the heart of our difference of opinion.
Have you met a single creature on this entire planet who does not act in their own best interest?
Do you even know the fundamental assumption of Austrian Economics?
The Action Axiom could be rephrased in the following way:
With every single action, every human being aims to maximise their satisfaction.
This is the fundamental starting point of the entire Austrian School of economics. Every economic principle can be derived from this starting assumption.
If you disagree with this starting assumption then we could debate blackmail forever and never get anywhere.
Please indicate to all of us whether or not you agree with the starting assumption of Austrian Economics.
If yes, then we can move on to more complex situations like blackmail.
If no, then we need to forget about the blackmail debate and shift to a new debate on the fundamentals of human behaviour.
Published: October 6, 2009 3:08 AM
Brian Macker
Also on maturity and marriage.
There is a libertarian argument about slavery that sketched out simply says that ones current self cannot know what ones future self will do, or want. Thus it is an absurdity to sell oneself into slavery because it is impossible to alienate your ability to make decisions. My bad attempt to write it up in two sentences.
In any case the same thing can be said of marriage. The thing is that once you are in with kids you are stuck with what are bad choices. A man may find that his wife does not satisfy him sexually and yet may decide it best to stay with his wife for the sake of the kids. He may cheat and his wife may be fully aware of this. She may also be fine with this arrangement. What she wouldn't be fine with however is everyone knowing about it.
So in walks the blackmailer, who the pro-blackmailers think is doing some kind of social service. He spills the beans and the relationship that was decided best by both parties given the circumstances is ruined.
Who the hell is he to decide what is "best" for the family? Same goes in the adopted kid scenario.
The fact he's trying to coerce money out of the family is a clear indication that he absolutely does not have their interests in mind.
To expect marriage to conform to the wedding vows shows a pretty immature understanding of the world. People change, feelings change, desires change, situations change, etc. Not every couple decides divorce is the answer, yet social convention is not necessarily in harmony with this.
I remember one story that was in the news where some guys wife was in a coma for several years and he was getting sex in the meantime. Ripe target for a blackmailer. Sure he can tell his wife and avoid the blackmail but why should he have to? Also perhaps the ability to get some on the side is what allowed him to NOT file for divorce or worse yet pull the plug.
So it's not so simple as thinking that a reduction of infidelity increases value. Certainly we don't want blackmailers to be the ones who make such decisions. They are the last people to be in the correct position to make such subjective judgments.
Published: October 6, 2009 3:09 AM
Brian Macker
Jenny is raped. Jenny never pressed charges because the rapist was wearing a mask and it happened when she was too young to know what to do.
Joe finds out Jenny was raped and that she is keeping it a secret. She keeps the secret because the social convention is that raped women are not suitable for marriage, or it's just plain embarrassing.
Which of the following should be legal?
a) Joe blackmails Jenny into paying him $1000 to keep quite.
b) Joe blackmails Jenny into sleeping with him.
c) Joe blackmails Jenny into marrying him.
According to you fundamentalist libertarian theorists what's the legal convention here in case a) if Jenny then decides she doesn't care about Joe's silence anymore? Supposing she is able to prove this somehow, perhaps an audio tape. Does she get a refund on the $1000? Is is prorated over her lifetime? Remember you need a convention for when no contract was written down. How does one derive such a law from negative rights?
Isn't the purpose of law to attempt to make decisions that are just? Where's the justice in allowing smucks like Joe to use people? He uses Jenny and trades no value to her that he created.
His only relationship to Jenny is that he can harm her, not beneficially trade with her. The only benefit his own, not hers.
Why should any sane Judge decide on the behalf of Joe? If that's the case, if no sane person would say Joe deserved to take Jenny's thousand then how is that different than cheating her. Shouldn't cheating other people be illegal?
I don't think calling Jenny stupid, is appropriate either, as one commenter did in a similar situation. Is the law only to protect the smart? Are retards, the innocent, the naive, the trusting all fair game?
Published: October 6, 2009 3:37 AM
Luke M
Brian,
OK, this is where I'll draw the line for continuing this discussion. If you're not persuaded by my arguments or those of the previous posters by now then I think it's probably fruitless to continue the debate.
Published: October 6, 2009 4:31 AM
mpolzkill
Brian Macker: "retards"
? Not to be the "appropriateness police" or anything, but that really clangs off my ear.
Brian Macker: "Where's the justice in allowing smucks like Joe to use people?
Where's the justice in taking a gun and locking up the world's most disgusting, yet non-violent piece of hypothetical garbage at the tax-payer's expense. If this scum-bag disagrees, by the way, and resists enough, he will be killed. I don't know what these other guys believe in, but I believe in proportionality. The State *is* violence. No one not engaged in violence should ever have occasion to deal with the State. Perhaps you literally meant that he was a schmuck. That's just a clumsy or stupid person. Do you think there are any other ways to educate someone other than pointing a gun at them or beating them with a club and locking them in a cage?
I thought I've seen you on here before; didn't you used to be a libertarian? Why are you so condescending? Most of us know what Positive Law is. I understand that you think society should be molded by a gang of lawyers. I understand how it came to be that there are over one million federal laws on the books: millions of people like you see something they don't like and say, "there oughtta be a law." That's fine, as long as I can go some place with adults. Maybe I missed it, or you missed it, or I'm just a nut: how about community standards!?! Local rule? Or is everyone here only interested in theorizing on how to make everyone in the world live in the same way? As I see it, outside of the standard vices, that desire is the greatest source of the world's ills, and I don't see how anyone calling themselves a libertarian can entertain it (not that you are, I don't know what your deal is).
Luke M: "the example of having to paying his mortgage. If he doesn't pay, the bank will take his house. Clearly this would harm him. Is the bank, then, blackmailing him? Of course not, that's absurd."
Yes it is, and the bank is *not* coercing him either. That drives me crazy! "Coerce" is a very strong word.
Luke M: "it's probably fruitless"
Probably.
Published: October 6, 2009 6:18 AM
Jay Lakner
Brian,
You do seem to be trying very hard to throw a thousand ideas at us at once in some attempt to confuse the issue. Yet closer examination shows that you fail to address the fundamental points we're making.
**********
Sorry to tell you this but you cannot deduce all legal opinion from the phrase "force or fraud". Much more is required. For example the reasonable man test, which would go with my reference to "endangerment".
The border between what should and should not be legal is not some clear cut straight line that can be deduced from simple phrases. It is precisely because you haven't approached this with a fully critical mind that you haven't deduced this.
Exactly at what distance does my birdfeeder have to be from my neighbor before I am destroying his property? Does intention matter? Does blackmailing reveal intention?
Law has to be much broader than mere protection of negative rights. It's impossible to tell the boundary here with the bird feeder based merely on concepts of negative rights.
In actuality what happens is that such cases get decided based on convention. Some conventions work out better than others. What doesn't and can't happen in many cases is having the convention be based on negative rights.
Oh and with regards to the reasonable man test, used to decide things like endangerment. I don't think a reasonable man would think that a blackmailer is doing the wife and kids a favor by coercing money out of a cheating husband. Just my humble opinion.
**********
Not exactly what I'd call a convincing line of logic. Let's recap what you've just said:
1. The dividing line between legal and illegal can sometimes be difficult to define,
2. Therefore, intention must matter,
3. Blackmail involves intention,
4. Therefore Blackmail should be illegal.
Point 1 is something I agree with. But point 1 certainly does not logically lead to point 2. In fact I find point 1 to be quite irrelevent to the subject. We already know that "intention" is important.
"Intention" seems to be the thing you're hung up on.
This is where we need to break it down.
Which intentions should we allow, and which intentions should we disallow?
The general intention of every living being on this planet right now is to maximise their satisfaction.
Different individuals derive satisfaction from different things.
So there will be certain specific intentions that are permissible and certain specific intentions that are not permissible.
To decide, we need to identify the rights of every individual in society.
If every individual has the right to their life, liberty and property, then it is clear that the only intentions to outlaw are those that infringe on these rights.
The only way to infringe on these rights is by force or through fraud.
Actions that use force or commit fraud are not permissible.
Therefore, actions undertaken with the intention to use force or commit fraud are not permissible.
All other actions must be permitted.
All other intentions must be irrelevant.
Unless, of course, there is some other human right that exists that I don't know about.
**********
BTW the definition of coerce is not what some think it is. American Heritage Dictionary: 1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel. So yes the blackmailer is coercing, making a threat. "Give me money or I'll tell your kids what you did", is most certainly a threat designed to compel an action.
**********
That's why, in a response to post by Gil earlier, I pointed out that there is a difference between the general definition of coerce and the libertatrian definition.
Libertarians define coerce as using the threat of force or fraud to compel an action.
**********
I'll perhaps consider making blackmail legal once all such unjust laws and social conventions are abandoned, which will happen when hell freezes over.
What you don't understand is that you've already "lost" the argument about fractals specifically because I could argue this far. If there were are blindingly obvious line between what should be legal and not based on "force or fraud" then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The world is full of "fuzzy nonsense". The boundary between crime and not crime is fuzzy.
**********
You've got it backwards. Going to such extremes so as to bring up quantum theory and fractals is, in fact, a sign that it is YOU that has "lost" the argument.
**********
(Russ wrote) "Here's a strong point that you seem to be ignoring. If act X is not illegal, then threatening act X should not be illegal, and contingently threatening act X should not be illegal. The idea that act X is not illegal, but contingently threatening act X should be illegal, is absurd."
Yet, when you ask the vast majority of people they don't think it is absurd.
**********
The quote from Russ outlines the major fallacy in your logic. Yet you pretend like it means nothing.
Are you really trying argue that because everyone else thinks blackmail should be illegal, that it should therefore be illegal???
The vast majority of people also think that minimum wage laws are good and that central banking is required to stop the free market crashing. Does that make them correct?
If everyone believes that every "Brian" on the planet should be immediately put to death for the good of the humanity, does that make them correct???
We are arguing on the basis of LOGIC, not on the basis of how many other people agree with the different sides of the argument.
Your response is an immediate indication that you do not comprehend the fundamentals of the debate.
**********
It's only a strong point if we start with your unstated and yes shallow assumptions. Ayn Rand's mistakes included no philosopher has been able to show that you can deduce to any particular set of moral let alone legal set of rules.
One can take a Hayekian viewpoint and believe that laws, social institutions, and moral conventions are evolved strategies. Like evolved creatures it doesn't make much sense to assume that there is some single objectively pure set of strategies that is best. What is better depends on the competing strategies, human nature, environment, etc. Two competing strategies might be equally suitable assuming different set of conventions.
There are lots of examples of this. Even where you allow options there is a question of what should be the default rule and what should be the rule which requires a contract. In marriage should the default be a 50/50 split regardless of what assets were brought into the marriage, with prenuptial agreement required otherwise, or should it be the other way around? Does, negative rights, and "force or fraud" have anything to say on this. Not really. The convention could be either, but something has to be "the law".
This is exactly similar to issues in math with Godel theorem. There are statements that cannot be proven within a system either way given certain axioms. For those statements you can choose to assign them values as truths or falsehoods and come up with different systems. Euclidian vs. non-euclidian geometry depends on such a choice. Do parallel lines intersect or not.
You are trying to derive law from libertarian principles but it is well known that libertarians are quite fractious in their beliefs.
**********
You have quite nicely argued for the complete OPPOSITE of what you're advocating.
You are correct - there is no 'true' set of morals.
Therefore, one should not legislate morality.
Let social conventions decide how a society behaves ... and society should certainly not enforce morality through the barrel of a gun.
Instead of passing laws that prevent blackmail. Allow blackmail and let society freely decide on it's merits.
You are arguing that blackmail should be law. Libertarians argue that, since blackmail does not involve force or fraud, and since there is no correct set of morals, then we cannot make blackmail law.
It's a clear contradiction to infringe on someone's rights to punish someone who has not, in any way, infringed on another's rights.
**********
There are both pro and anti abortion libertarians. Hard to square with the idea that everything is derived from "force or fraud".
What about the other assumptions that have been accepted? Assume fetuses are humans with rights and you get one set of beliefs and do the opposite another. Both compatible with "force and fraud".
**********
Abortion is a difficult one. It comes down to how we define "human life".
But I have no wish to debate abortion at this time. The debate is whether blackmail should or should not be a law and you have failed to prove it's necessity or disprove the arguments against it.
Your derogatory comments and condescending tone make you less than an ideal individual to engage in debate with. I suggest you address these parts of your writing style. Another suggestion, you might want to check the fundamental assumptions by which you believe the things you believe. Maybe a couple of popular fallacies have snuck there way in there?
Russ nicely pointed out to you one of the greatest fallacies in the existence of blackmail laws. Maybe it needs to be emphasised more.
I'll put it in simpler terms:
If performing act X is not illegal, then how can threatening to perform act X be illegal?
Unless you can logically respond to this question, (and the one in my previous post), then I agree with Luke ... "it's probably fruitless to continue the debate".
Published: October 6, 2009 6:35 AM
mpolzkill
Jay Lakner:
"there is a difference between the general definition of coerce and the libertatrian definition. Libertarians define coerce as using the threat of force or fraud to compel an action."
This is one of my biggest pet peeves (so I'm flogging it), I wouldn't even grant as much as you are. If the general public is using the word as Brian does, it is an abuse of the origin and spirit of the word.
Webster's:
Etymology: Middle English cohercen, from Anglo-French *cohercer Latin coercēre, from co- + arcēre to shut up, enclose - more at ark
Date: 15th century
1 : to restrain or dominate by force "religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious"
2 : to compel to an act or choice "was coerced into agreeing"
3 : to achieve by force or threat "coerce compliance"
Only the second half of definition 3 works for Brian, and that's only because it *should* (IMHO) read: "to achieve by force or threat *of force*". The sensible use is implied by the root: to shut up, to imprison: a *complete* removal of choice. In Brian's strange example with the rape victim one could use all three definitions ridiculously by saying that the blackmailer, circumstances and the desires and/or hangups of the rape victim and others combined to coerce her into a particular decision. That is obviously strained.
All that aside, praying on weakness like this is loutish, and it won't be "coercion" either when social pressure is used on this hypothetical degenerate to either quickly educate him or drive him out of decent society altogether.
Published: October 6, 2009 7:23 AM
Shay
Brian Macker wrote, "Walter Block has you guys thinking like moral degenerates. [...] Now think a little more maturely."
What justifies you treating us in this manner? You talk of morality, but then hurl insults at people discussing these things. You talk of maturity, but then behave in this manner. If you want to write in a respectful manner, I think you'll find more people reading your posts. As it is, I just skip to the next post once I see underhanded insults like yours.
And just to repeat, most people here are discussing the libertarian aspects of blackmali, not the moral ones. This site is about Austrian economics, which is at its core based on liberty. Morality is orthogonal and since it's something that doesn't require the use of force, it's not the central topic. It's also a somewhat subjective thing, while liberty is not. By separating an issue into different aspects and then focusing on one aspect, it's easier to fully explore that aspect, without distraction from others. This doesn't mean that the ones discussing this live their lives ignoring those other aspects of everything, just that they have the ability to do so on some occasions.
Published: October 6, 2009 8:24 AM
Stephan Kinsella
Russ:
"
"...from what I can see he didn't do anything all that wrong--maybe seedy and immoral, but not unlibertarian..."
Doesn't "wrong" *mean* "immoral"???"
Well, yes, but I said, maybe it was immoral.. not sure. I said "all that wrong" meaning it seemed like a private indiscretion at most, a personal matter.
""...the worst he did was perhaps violate unjust state sexual harassment laws."
"No, the worst he did was cheat on his wife. That may not be a violation of rights, but it is immoral."
agreed, but I was not clear on the timeline--whether he has actually cheated on his wife. I thought maybe he cheated on the woman he was living in sin with (to paraphrase someone else, I've forgotten who), but that somehow doesn't have the same punch.
Gil:
"How do you know the sexual harassment laws are 'unjust'?"
for the same reasons I'm a libertarian.
Published: October 6, 2009 10:56 AM
Brian Macker
Sorry for the long pause but I got sick and also had lots of work to do and catch up on.
There's a comment I made above that seems to be making quite a few people upset.
In response to this comment: "But this is not the fault of the blackmailer - it's the fault of the man who decided to cheat on his wife. The victim here is the wife and kids, not the man being blackmailed. It was their trust that was betrayed and the cheating husband has only himself to blame."
I wrote this:
"What crocodile tears you shed.
Yes, the wife/husband and kids are victims, perhaps depending on circumstances because the world is complex, and your blackmailer wants to victimize them again by bleeding their provider for a mistake he/she made.
Walter Block has you guys thinking like moral degenerates. It's certainly the fault of the blackmailer that he's injecting himself into a situation where he can profit from that damage he can inflict on one side or the other. He bears responsibility for his actions which will cause harm to one party or the other.
Now think a little more maturely. Suppose you did know that somebody was cheating on their spouse. Are you really so naive to believe that telling the spouse would be the best thing to do for the family? Many times it would not. Sometimes it is just a one time mistake, etc."
This is not an indictment of every libertarian argument ever made, or every libertarian. Libertarian thought is very broad. It's an criticism of specific narrow kinds of libertarian thought. It's an indictment of some of the very dubious arguments put forth in Walter Blocks book, "Defending the Undefendable."
If you don't use those kinds of arguments, then I don't have a problem with you. If you go around running with arguments made by Block in the direction that blackmailers are hero's who are only policing society for the better, then I have a problem with you.
Yes, I've read tons of libertarian material and yet I do NOT call myself a lilbertarian even though I agree with a lot of it. Why is that? Because way too often I've run into libertarians who are out to protect the dogma, and drive out the heretics. Often based on claims that one can deduce both morality and proper law based on the narrowest of assumptions. That's a flight of fancy.
To take that comment and to assume that it's directed at every libertarian is mistaken. It's only directed at some.
Published: October 17, 2009 9:23 AM
Brian Macker
mpolzkill,
"Brian Macker: "retards" ? Not to be the "appropriateness police" or anything, but that really clangs off my ear."
I see, you don't like political correctness, yet you just feel compelled to act in this case because you want to make it appear as I was stepping way over some line. One you claim not to care about.
My use of retard was not offensive. I wasn't using it against the retarded, it was in defense of to quote the other guy "fricking stupid". If someone said that we should ship every one who speaks Spanish back to Spain, and was clearly doing so for racist reasons, then I would say "So your attitude is deport the Spics". It makes explicit an attitude the other person is taking. Likewise someone who advocates that others get what they deserve for being stupid, then I would think they have a problem with the retarded, and find them contempable. Especially when they are arguing that people who take stupid actions that allow them to be taken advantage of should not be protected by the law, by calling them stupid, as if that matters.
Making the statement, "I still stand by my statement that the girl was really fricking stupid, though. Giving somebody that kind of leverage over you is tantamount to asking for it.", is tantamount to saying "screw the retards". What I had written was defending not denigrating the retarded, innocent, and other "fricking stupid" people that the commenter wanted to throw to the wolves. I wrote: "I don't think calling Jenny stupid, is appropriate either, as one commenter did in a similar situation. Is the law only to protect the smart? Are retards, the innocent, the naive, the trusting all fair game?"
Oh, and BTW, I really wouldn't care if instead of calling me an idiot, someone called me a retard. My father, myself, and my son have all done voluneer work with the retarded. My dad headed the ARC of Sullivan County for a decade. It think people who go all hyper political correct like this are trying to feel good about themselves without actually rolling their sleeves up and actually doing something about it. It's especially ridiculous when it isn't likely anyone who's feeling might be hurt are not even in on the conversation. So when you call someone else a retard to their face in private it is merely an insult against them. It means they are stupid. Unless you want to argue that retards are smart.
I've already shown that the simple argument "Blackmail, asking to be paid to keep quite, should be legal if it is perfectly legal for the person to disclose the information in the first place" is false. I falsified it with the example of blackmailing someone for a crime they committed. It's perfectly legal to disclose a crime. In that case it is perfectly legal for any third party to disclose the information that would hurt the person it would damage. Yet it becomes a crime to ask to be paid to keep silent about the crime because that would entail obstruction of justice. One could argue that the person with the knowledge of a crime has an legal duty to come forward with the information and that is the crime in and of itself, but it is NOT the crime of consipiracy. Thus the blackmail in this case is an independent crime regardless of you position on that subject.
I've also shown very strongly that blackmailers are not acting in the interests of anyone but themselves. This isn't some kind of social charity work as Block argued. Blackmailers operate with a selfish other destructive attitude, and not self interest at heart. There is a difference. The blackmailer regardless of the choice of the victim is always screwing somebody over.
I've also shown that blackmailers would have an incentive to manufacture situations where the victim loses either way, "Pay me money, or something bad will happen that the law does currently find criminal on my part, or finds unjustly criminal on your part." or "Pay me money or I'll make things very difficult for you in ways the law can't correct because of transaction costs".
I've shown the the mere act of blackmail shows "mens rea", one of the cornerstones of establishing criminality. I've shown that the threatened action is not merely some negative externality of some positive behavior.
Sometimes I feel like I'm working with the retarded again when people don't realize how far their positions have been whittled back. Who does that insult apply to? I don't know. You can all self apply it if you like and get all offended. I think it would be hypocritical of a guy like Josh to get offended when he goes around questioning others "capacity to reason".
I think it was Josh who first turned this up several notches. He's making the kind of shallow knee jerk libertarian arguments I was talking about. Shallow and insulting. This doesn't merely boil down to voluntary exchange as he was claiming, and others aren't stupid for recognizing that fact.
... and yes it's morally degenerate to think blackmailers are providing society some kind of moral governance. Their behavior is morally repulsive, and yes there is a enormous difference between deciding the best thing to do is to divulge some information, and deciding that such calculation should depend on whether you can turn a buck on it.
... and yes it is immature to think that in every single instance of a cheating husband, or a secret kept that making it public is the best thing to do. Lying is quite often the correct moral thing to do. Only five year old's think you always have to tell the truth, and always have to speak up. That's a recipe for disaster in many situations. So to make arguments in that direction with regard to blackmail shows that someone is thinking in an immature way.
Published: October 17, 2009 10:10 AM
mpolzkill
Brian Macker says:
"[1] I see, you don't like political correctness, [2] yet you just feel compelled to act in this case because you want to make it appear as I was stepping way over some line. [3] One you claim not to care about."
What a lot of theory for a small sentence. Why not just take it at face value? Let's see:
"Not to be the 'appropriateness police' or anything, but that really clangs off my ear."
[1] Yes, I don't think you should be ordered and forced to stop using any term.
[2] This isn't in my sentence at all, but I'll address it anyway: I don't want or need to make you appear like anything. You don't need my help in sounding boorish and condescending. I don't know anything about any "lines", it's all pretty fuzzy.
[3] No, I said I do care, the term clangs off my ear and I don't think I'm alone. I would like the boorish to stop being boorish in public; I do care.
Again, you can say whatever you want to, and I can say how crass you sound to *me*. Why the huge defense of yourself if its all no big deal? Why more than one defense?!? Why didn't you make up your mind on which defense you were going to use? First you say that you used it as one would say to perhaps a gung-ho Team America type: "ah, wanna go kill some gooks, eh? (or wogs, or towel-heads, or injuns, or whatever. Those all clang off my ear far more than your relatively innocuous. I'm thinking of even more nauseating ones that I won't type)" Then you site your charity work for the mentally retarded and apparently assert that the term "retarded and "retard" are interchangeable by in fact interchanging them! Bizarre! (you so remind me of Matt Dillon in "Something About Mary": "I work with retards!, There's the one kid, we call him Mongo..." Thanks for the laugh.)
I guess it must have been that you sensed the weakness of your first defense since it just doesn't sound like what you said you were doing was really what you *were* doing in the sentence:
"Are retards, the innocent, the naive, the trusting all fair game?"
Why didn't you say something like: "Are retards, the child-like, the hayseeds, the suckers all fair game?" Either you're full of crap now or when you wrote it you just didn't take any care to make your usage of the word "retard" plain.
Anyway, say whatever you want; there is another defense I have against boorish talk. If you come back with anything other than something like, "yeah, you got me". I am going to skip over all remaining posts that say "Brian Macker" on them. See, self-policing; the only kind I need or want, as I suggested.
Published: October 17, 2009 11:03 AM
mpolzkill
* "relatively innocuous term."
And I should have said: "there is another defense I have against hearing boorish talk, useless talk and outright bull."
Published: October 17, 2009 11:12 AM
Brian Macker
Shay,
"What justifies you treating us in this manner? You talk of morality, but then hurl insults at people discussing these things. You talk of maturity, but then behave in this manner."
My comments were conditional. They didn't apply to everyone. I reviewed my comments that were direct replies to you and none of them hurled any insults at you.
Morality does not require that I be polite when others are questioning my "capacity to reason", and making other insults. If they take off the gloves then I am justified in doing so also. Sometimes I do and sometimes i don't, both are within the bounds of morality and maturity, and it's my choice how gentle I wish to be.
Besides those weren't merely unrelated insults. There was morally degenerate thinking, and immature thinking going on in the thread.
Now I will respond to another of your comments: "The fundamental point here is the lack of use of force. Force is the only way to infringe on a person's liberty, by harming the person, or harming/stealing his property, thus force is only justified in defending from such uses of force."
What ever happened to fraud? You can't talk in absolutes like this. No libertarian has ever established that everything boils down to force. Even the most strident include "fraud" in the equation, and even then they recognize it's not so simple as what you just wrote.
This is philosophically naive. It's a whole lot more complex than this.
Philosophically I'm a pancritical rationalist in the spirit of William W. Bartley. Thus falsification plays a huge role in my thinking. I think your claim is falsifiable, thus not total gibberish, yet I have falsified it.
I'll do it again. Person A can find out about an illegal activity of B. Note illegal here is not used as equivalent to criminal, so neither A nor B is acting criminally, nor using force. For example, B may be peacefully smoking pot. It would be perfectly legal for A to rat out B to the authorities, although immoral because B's activity is not criminal. A is not using any force. Now A could also ask B for money not to rat him out, and still not be committing a crime, because A would NOT then be participating in a criminal conspiracy. He would only be participating in an illegal conspiracy.
Yet in this case A is acting criminally. He is extracting money from someone else by taking advantage of a discrepancy between what is legal and what is criminal. Sure he couldn't do this if things were perfect but things never are perfect.
Even if what B were doing was something criminal we would have a situation where A could talk without committing a crime, while asking for money for silence would in fact be conspiring to hide the crime. Which in fact involves no force on the part of A.
Even if we include fraud in the equation the actions of A in either case are not fraudulent. Keeping silent when you know the truth, a lie of omission, isn't fraud if one is not gaining by it.
A lie of omission does become fraud when A does gain by it. It is the demand for money by that turns the silence into fraud in the case of an underlying crime by B, and also attempted conspiracy. Because then A has something to gain by covering up the crime.
That's where "whole" part comes into play with the question and oath, "Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
You think force is the only fundamental factor and I don't. I think many factors play into this. The use of force or not may not change between the situations, however other factors may change that converts an act from being legal to criminal.
Mental state is one of those factors. Fraud is another as most other libertarians recognize. I recognize other factors such as endangerment, and reasonable man tests. I also think that reasonable social conventions also come into play. I could go on.
Published: October 17, 2009 11:32 AM
Brian Macker
Jay,
"Not exactly what I'd call a convincing line of logic. Let's recap what you've just said:
1. The dividing line between legal and illegal can sometimes be difficult to define,
2. Therefore, intention must matter,
3. Blackmail involves intention,
4. Therefore Blackmail should be illegal."
Not my argument at all. I don't deduce 2 from 1. We already know that intention matters to criminality. There's a big difference between accidentally cracking someone over the head with a 2x4 for no reason, and doing it on purpose with a guilty mind. The latter is criminal.
Number three on your list is just plain silly interpretation of any point I had. Almost every action involves intention. Mens rea doesn't mean intention.
I'm not surprised you haven't been convinced by my arguments. You seem to miss things that are so obvious to me (and I would think any reasonable person) that I do not bother to point them out. Part of convincing someone else is figuring out where they went wrong and correcting the problem. You however are missing things that I find obvious.
As an example, you wrote before, and I did not address, the following sentence.
"In the example you gave, one could argue that it was a poor decision to keep the child's adoption secret in the first place. One could argue that the parents were the ones who created a potentially emotionally harmful situation to begin with."
Are you kidding? It never crossed your mind that the emotionally harmful situation might NOT be due to the adoptive parents? Like maybe the biological parents were absolute degenerate fucks that a child might not be emotionally able to deal with until he/she was an adult? You really think a five year old is in the position to deal with the fact that his biological father was a mass murdering rapist? That he would be able to deal with it if all his school friends were informed by the blackmailer unless adoptive daddy coughed up the cash. That the adoptive parents are at fault for this. What, they should have let the kid remain institutionalize in the orphanage, and pick a more suitable kid? Is that the next argument?
This is the direction Walter Block took the argument in his book and it's wrong, both morally and intellectually. Blackmail is not about serving the interests of society.
Can't you see that it is a near impossible task to argue that the blackmailer is acting in the interests of the child in this case. The adoptive parent (unless there are ulterior motives) should have the presumption of thinking in the interests of the child here. The adoptive parent has already demonstrated that his interests are aligned with the child by supporting the child.
The blackmailer by his act demonstrates his willingness to align himself against the interests of the child. If the disclosure of the information would help the child then he has shown a willingness to let the child suffer for money. This is NOT the case for someone who hasn't tried to coerce money out of the adoptive parent.
Now the intellectually honest thing to do is concede this point and retreat to the defense of a much narrower and much more limited position.
Instead what I see you doing is ignoring the sentence "I don't think a reasonable man would think that a blackmailer is doing the wife and kids a favor by coercing money out of a cheating husband.", and ignoring the thrust of the argument. Instead, you create a four point straw man and attack that.
"Libertarians define coerce as using the threat of force or fraud to compel an action."
That's called extortion. Coercion is a broader concept and I WAS NOT relying on mere coercion to establish the criminality of the acts. The police coerce criminals legally every day. It's coercion combined with other factors that makes an act criminal.
Using coercion to steal the product of another is criminal. Preying on the concern an adoptive parent in order to siphon away undeserved resources is a crime. It involves no force or fraud, yet it is criminal. It's perverse to think it serves the interests of the child or society.
Since mpolzkill chimed in on this I'll point out that Webster's dictionary is notorious for missing meanings of words, and distorting to Webster's own particular religious viewpoints ignoring common usages that don't agree with that viewpoint. For example, atheist means one who doesn't believe in god, yet that meaning is not in Websters.
I already cited the common usage of the word that I was using. It does NOT conflict with the entymology of the word, "to enclose", and it wouldn't matter if it did. Blackmailing the adoptive parent does restrict his choices and does therefore box him in. It restricts his choice by tying consequeces to actions artificially.
Normally the parent could use his rightfully gained income to support himself and his child without any negative consequences to the child. The blackmailer artificially ties the consequence of harm to the child, to this act. Now the parent can't use all his income without harming the child in another way. The "enclosure of choice" is revealed by the fact that he has to make a decision he didn't face before.
It's perverse to interpret this as a broadening of choice as Block has. Block argues that the blackmailer allows the additional choice of paying to keep the secret where before no such choice was available. In that interpretation the robber is also giving you additional choices, when he says, your money or your life.
Published: October 17, 2009 12:51 PM
Brian Macker
Mpolzkill,
For someone who isn't politically correct you sure like to press the point.
That didn't take much writing did it. Must be correct by your metric.
BTW, It's unreasonable to think the amount of writing required to communicate something reflects on it's correctness or not. Perhaps I'm not a very good writer. Perhaps I don't understand what you get or don't get so I'm using grape shot. Perhaps I think you are dense and need extra schooling.
I think several of you posts are really wandering far afield into ad hominem and political correctness. Even libertarian political correctness.
You charge me with the following:
The only ideological position I claim to hold is pancritical rationalism. I'll abandon that as soon as someone falsifies that position.
I don't call myself a libertarian for precisely the reason that these kinds of irrational arguments are made by many true believers. If the ideology of libertarianism is dogmatic and wrong in any particular then I'm more that willing to abandon the label.
Even under a anarchist utopia society will be "molded by a gang of lawyers" and judges.
This line of thinking is very similar to that minority of libertarians who refuse to get drivers licenses or are opposed to them, like Badnarik. Which is ridiculous because even the owner of a private road is going to require some form of licensing, or certification, lest he be held liable for any accidents. Free market roads won't be free from traffic signs either.
Nor will "free" societies be free of lawyers.
"I thought I've seen you on here before; didn't you used to be a libertarian? Why are you so condescending?"
Yes, I was a libertarian. Some think I still am. Some libertarians have excommunicated me for thinking on my own.
You say you have pet peeves well I have some of my own. I don't like circle the wagons type arguments are used by libertarians. Like there are only two possible philosophical positions, libertarianism, and Statism.
I've coined a term for my own philosophical position so as not to sully the purity of libertarism for the dogmatists. I call myself a responsibilian. I spelled this out a little bit here a Mises on a prior post.
There were several things that triggered my switch. One was an article here that argued that paying life insurance to US servicemen was equivalent to the rewards that suicide bombers families get from Saudi Arabia.
Another was the constant embarrassment of having to point out that, no I'm not one of those libertarians who think that a) Seasteading is a reasonable response to government hegemony. b) Graffitti of street signs is fine. c) All taxation is theft. d) Border control is the equivalent to wanting to shoot down Mexican's in cold blood. e) and so forth.
My original conversion happened over at the blog no-treason. I'd point to the comments there except the site had a crash that deleted them all. This is a very common theme in the movement. Many people have been drummed out of the libertarian party, excommunicated out of various groups, etc.
I don't think this is the only correct move and have no problem with other libertarians calling themselves what they want.
I could call myself a libertarian if the purpose of the label was to identify what I didn't believe in, but not necessarily as a positive label. But it can't truly serve that purpose as the term atheism could for me. I'm atheist because I don't believe in any known theist religion. I'm libertarian in that I do not believe in any socialist ideologies. However libertarianism does entail some positive beliefs unlike atheism, so depending on how one defines those positive beliefs I either am or am not a libertarian.
I'm certainly NOT an anarchist, although I have no positive proof that anarchism couldn't somehow work. I don't however think there is enough evidence in to decry non-anarchists as criminal conspirators with the state. I have good arguments for why that is not the case.
Published: October 17, 2009 1:45 PM
mpolzkill
My goodness, you're dishonest. I don't have time to go through your spiel right now, nice start though. Serves your purpose to change my: "What a lot of *theory*" to "*writing*", doesn't it?
Published: October 17, 2009 2:51 PM
mpolzkill
Macker say: "For someone who isn't politically correct you sure like to press the point."
I never said anything about "political correctness", you did. And as you say, it may take a lot of writing to counter something, and you talk a lot of bull.
"Perhaps I think you are dense and need extra schooling."
Cute, followed by:
"ad hominem"
Where? I never said you were wrong because you don't seem very libertarian, I merely asked a question.
"You charge me"
Yet more overheated baloney. Actually, that's about enough for me; as I promised, I'm stopping here. Goodbye, Macker.
Published: October 17, 2009 3:39 PM
Jay Lakner
lol mpolzkill, I'm surprised you let it go that far.
I thought Brian's "overheated baloney" personality-trait would be apparent to everyone as soon as he started trying to argue that the subjectivity of morality is a justification for the legislation of morality.
Not only that, Brian Macker has demonstrated a complete unwillingness to address the fundamental argument.
Instead he goes off on these wishy-washy spiels about irrelevent aspects of the debate.
He has completely avoided the following:
If act X is not illegal, then how can threatening to commit act X be illegal?
eg 1. It's not illegal for me to shave my head, however, by Brian Macker's logic, threatening someone that I will shave my head if they do not give me $10000 should be illegal.
eg 2. It's not illegal for me to buy a Ford, however, by Brian Macker's logic, threatening a Chrysler salesman that I will go and buy a Ford unless he sells me that Chrysler for $10000 should be illegal.
eg 3. It's not illegal to tell a woman that her husband is cheating on him, however by Brian Macker's logic, threatening the husband that I will tell her unless he gives me $10000 should be illegal.
It is completely absurd to argue that it should be illegal to 'threaten' to perform an act that you already have the right to do.
Until Brian can address this with a clear, logical refutation, anything else he has to say on the subject is irrelevant.
(Of course, with the exception of, "You guys are right. I can't counter that. Blackmail should be legal." But do you really think we're going to hear that from him?)
Published: October 18, 2009 8:09 PM
mpolzkill
Jay,
Haha, yeah, I don't know what my deal is.
"trying to argue that the subjectivity of morality is a justification for the legislation of morality"
Very well put. I think that is all one needs to know about this particular brouhaha. Thanks.
Published: October 18, 2009 10:17 PM
Jay Lakner
For anyone who still cares, I should point out that Brian Macker's "refutation" of the fundamental point was so bad that I chose to ignore it.
But I think I'll respond just so I don't get accused of being blind or immature or morally degenerate or something.
**********
I've already shown that the simple argument "Blackmail, asking to be paid to keep quite, should be legal if it is perfectly legal for the person to disclose the information in the first place" is false. I falsified it with the example of blackmailing someone for a crime they committed. It's perfectly legal to disclose a crime. In that case it is perfectly legal for any third party to disclose the information that would hurt the person it would damage. Yet it becomes a crime to ask to be paid to keep silent about the crime because that would entail obstruction of justice. One could argue that the person with the knowledge of a crime has an legal duty to come forward with the information and that is the crime in and of itself, but it is NOT the crime of consipiracy. Thus the blackmail in this case is an independent crime regardless of you position on that subject
**********
Despite the irritation it causes me, I do appreciate the ingenius ability Brian Macker seems to have for injecting wishy-washiness into a debate. I might hire him to be my defense lawyer when the State hauls me in for cutting my toenails too short or whatever.
Now let's see ... Apparently the following statement proves itself:
"it becomes a crime to ask to be paid to keep silent about the crime because that would entail obstruction of justice."
All I can say to this statement is ... False!
I'm pretty sure that I too can also disprove anything, provided that I am allowed to invent whatever false assumptions I deem necessary to complete the job.
Published: October 20, 2009 7:28 AM