Should it be illegal for the news media to lie?

[SapereAude]

I really don't want to engage anyone in the above sort of manner, so I'm a little hesitant to press, but...

I also responded to your earlier post, and I wonder if you're interested at all in the questions I'd raised? Perhaps you think my scenario inapplicable? Or perhaps you've decided that I'm also being "deliberately obtuse" or "intellectually dishonest" (though obviously I try not to be either of those things). I don't know.

But I remain interested in this topic, and generally unsettled, and since you appear to have a strong and clear opinion on the subject, I'd also be interested in your reply.

Sorry, I did not see your post and am going to be at work non stop for the next couple days. I will try to remember to come back to it when I have a chance. I shouls also point out that my statement about intellectual dishonesty was aimed specifically at the other poster asking one question of me, then stating he wasn't interested in the answer to that question and accusing me of refusing to answer a different question.

I've seen no such behavior from you ever, and as such would make no such statement about you..

Because the answer to your question (which I just read) seemed to veer off topic I sent you a quick DM response.

Edited March 23, 2012 by SapereAude

[Nicky]

Reputation is a general opinion of you, not an individual one. Who else could you say owns a reputation but the person to whom it applies.

Ideas and thoughts aren't property, but the obvious answer is that any thought or piece of knowledge belongs to the person who's mind it happens to reside in.

So, instances of this general opinion you mention, belong to the individuals who hold said instances. For instance, my opinion of you belongs to me. It certainly isn't your property.

[Craig24]

Ideas and thoughts aren't property, but the obvious answer is that any thought or piece of knowledge belongs to the person who's mind it happens to reside in.

So, instances of this general opinion you mention, belong to the individuals who hold said instances. For instance, my opinion of you belongs to me. It certainly isn't your property.

My initial assertion that defamation is force was premature. I hadn't thought it through but I don't know what to think at this point. I will backtrack a bit and start with a question: What is a plaintiff in a defamation suit attempting to recover?

[Nicky]

My initial assertion that defamation is force was premature. I hadn't thought it through but I don't know what to think at this point. I will backtrack a bit and start with a question: What is a plaintiff in a defamation suit attempting to recover?

Why is that relevant? Does losing something automatically justify government action in your favor?

The answer is no, it doesn't. Government action is only justified if the loss occurred due to the use of physical force. Any other loss, fair or unfair, moral or immoral, does not justify the use of force to repair.

If someone harms you, without the use of force, you can retaliate, but only without the use of force. That means: without help from the government.

[whYNOT]

Reputation, per se, good or bad, only infers that an amorphous bunch of people have an opinion

of one - that they have observed and induced predominantly moral (or immoral) behavior from

this person.

While a good reputation is valuable, it can't be the property of the person

the same way his honesty and integrity are. If, as I think, it's a broad evaluation

by others, it is therefore their 'property': And it may be untrue, or it may be subjective.

For instance, I might appreciate a person for his forthrightness, fairness, and honesty -

but another person would dismiss him for being rude and hurtful.

Not to say that a good reputation is not worth pursuing, but it doesn't carry the same

value as "the reputation you have with yourself" -

as N. Branden defines self-esteem.

[SapereAude]

Reputation, per se, good or bad, only infers that an amorphous bunch of people have an opinion

of one - that they have observed and induced predominantly moral (or immoral) behavior from

this person.

While a good reputation is valuable, it can't be the property of the person

Sorry this is just factually inaccurate.

http://www.dolmanbateman.com.au/835/business-goodwill/

Goodwill in business is definied as having quantifiable value, and of being transferrable although it is intangible.

When I last had my business appraised the estimate that came back was 40% of the value of my business being in goodwill. This goodwill, while being intangible, is a thing that I can sell to somebody for a price.

[Nicky]

Sorry this is just factually inaccurate.

http://www.dolmanbat...iness-goodwill/

Goodwill in business is definied as having quantifiable value, and of being transferrable although it is intangible.

When I last had my business appraised the estimate that came back was 40% of the value of my business being in goodwill. This goodwill, while being intangible, is a thing that I can sell to somebody for a price.

Your property are those material values which you have a right to gain, keep and use. Not "whatever you can sell somebody for a price". Therefor stating that you can sell something immaterial to someone for a price doesn't prove that it's property. It just proves that you and that other person both considered it property.

Besides, you didn't sell "goodwill". You sold your business. What you call "goodwill" is part of the reason why the other person bought your business. It's not the object the other person bought. I can sell a house for more money because it has a nice view, or because the President likes to have coffee there. Doesn't mean I just sold the view, or the President's coffee drinking habits. Your goodwill, the view, and the President's habits are all mostly outside your control, and the people who do have control over them (the people who's opinions you count as goodwill, the owners of the land around your house, the President) can change them whenever they feel like it, for any reason they feel like it.

Just because you quantified the likelihood of these people not changing things around in a way that affects you, doesn't mean you own their minds or property. If you had advertised "I'm selling the goodwill of my business", for 40% of what my business is worth, you would've gotten exactly zero replies, because people would've recognized that you're not actually giving them anything in this transaction.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Nicky

[whYNOT]

Sorry this is just factually inaccurate.

http://www.dolmanbat...iness-goodwill/

Goodwill in business is definied as having quantifiable value, and of being transferrable although it is intangible.

When I last had my business appraised the estimate that came back was 40% of the value of my business being in goodwill. This goodwill, while being intangible, is a thing that I can sell to somebody for a price.

Fair enough, you are arguing from the base of 'business good-will', (which is appropriate to the gist of

this thread) while my argument is on the wider concept of 'reputation'.

No business would ever be sold, if it did not have a solid clientele at time of sale.

Present turn-over, and client base are objective, measurable, entities - and are a property

of that business. The value of good-will, however rests on the premise that it is unchanging and stable.

I don't think this is fully rational, and maybe even intrinsicist by nature.

I've seen several successful small businesses - like restaurants - being sold for huge prices, only to

fail within a short time, although the new owners ran them exactly as previous.

One may place a dollar value on good-will, but like reputation, it is a perception, and can be fickle..

[Craig24]

Do you consider your reputation (other people's opinions of you) your property?

That is not what reputation is. A defamatory statement does not contradict my opinion of you, it contradicts a fact. It is an attack on what is true about your character which is formed by your statements and actions, not the beliefs of other people. If I write to someone that you were convicted of molesting puppies, there is either a record of the conviction in existence or there isn't. What is in another person's mind isn't relevent.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Craig24

[Greebo]

Ideas and thoughts aren't property, but the obvious answer is that any thought or piece of knowledge belongs to the person who's mind it happens to reside in.

So, instances of this general opinion you mention, belong to the individuals who hold said instances. For instance, my opinion of you belongs to me. It certainly isn't your property.

Once again - a reputation is something someone strives to gain and to keep. That general consensus is earned. The value is the good opinion of other individuals, bought and paid for by the actions of the person to whom the reputation applies. That reputation is of no *value* to the person with the opinion, but it is of vital value to the person to whom it applies.

[Hotu Matua]

Let me make some remarks on Greebo arguments:

1) Greebo hasn't properly responded to the observation that truth can also cause harm. By keeping focused on the harm produced, and not from the action prevented (if any), Greebo keeps locked in a circle.

2) If I create a tablet that is far more advanced and far cheaper than the iPad, and customers abandon Apple and flock around my product, the reputation of the iPad will fall inasmuch the reputation of my tablet will raise. Apple will suffer devastating losses and many workers would be dismissed. A lot of "harm" will be done to Apple. However, I will not be a criminal.

3) Damaging someone's reputation by telling a lie keeps being a very, very bad thing. But there are ways to deal with a bad guy, other than initiating force with retaliatory force is not applicable. Bad guys can be punished by ostracism and boycott.

[Nicky]

4). What about helping someone's reputation by telling a lie?

[Grames]

Define the word force please. You seem to be using it differently than I am.

The definition I am using is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force This kind of force is not present in your scenario. Everyone who abandoned that dentist did so voluntarily, they were not physically forced to do so.

To use a definition of force from physics in reasoning about ethics and politics is to commit a context error. Nothing true or good can come from an error.

Force is a first person acting upon another person without that second person's consent. Actions identified as examples of force include (as referents of the concept of force) actual assault and battery, spoken threats of such, and possession or destruction of property without right. Rights are freedoms to act without physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Property rights are freedoms to act (use, consume, transfer or dispose) upon objects external to a person's body (objects not a referent of the concept 'person'). In a recent legal innovation (merely hundreds rather than thousands of years old) the law recognizes non-tangible intellectual property as objects of property rights so long as they can be objectively defined. Examples of intellectual property are copyrights, patents and certain (not all) aspects of reputation especially allegations of criminal acts.

[Nicky]

To use a definition of force from physics in reasoning about ethics and politics is to commit a context error.

What's a context error? I'm pretty sure Ethics and Politics are not outside the context of the physical world: the object of Physics.

And what do you think Ayn Rand meant by the expression "physical force", if not the force that exists in the physical world, as identified by the science which studies the physical world?

Edited April 5, 2012 by Nicky

[Grames]

A context error is dropping context or switching contexts so that the word being used ('force' here) has different referents and is therefore a different concept. I could have also described this error as equivocation on the word 'force'.

What Rand meant by the expression "physical force" was coercion, compulsion and interference by one person on another person without that person's consent. The initial resort to physical force defeats the victim's volition either totally or partially by means of alienating mind from body, cause from effect, work from reward. The emphasis on physical force is to make an objective distinction between acts which are merely disappointing or hurt the feelings of the alleged victim and acts which can be proven by their measurable consequences to infringe on objective rights.

I'm pretty sure that no aspect of physics studies human volition.

[Greebo]

Let me make some remarks on Greebo arguments:

1) Greebo hasn't properly responded to the observation that truth can also cause harm. By keeping focused on the harm produced, and not from the action prevented (if any), Greebo keeps locked in a circle.

I don't agree with this assessment. Harm was only one element of the argument I put forth - and I do believe I did make the distinction that the harm caused must be done so under false pretenses. Now I *do* agree that harm is not the *primary* consideration, but it is a consideration where defining force is involved. After all - a drunk can drive home and *actually* harm no-one, but expose others to the risk of harm. There is no physical force used against others in that instance, but the other people on the road are, nevertheless, harmed by the exposure to a risk that they did not consent to and which did not occur either naturally or as the result of their own actions.

The truth may harm someone, but in that case the harm is caused as a natural consequence of reality - no false pretense, no exposure that was not the result of a natural consequence. If one has done nothing to be ashamed of, the truth can only truly harm you if you attempt to evade its reality (See Dagny Taggert's reaction to the attempted blackmail of Lillian Reardon).

3) Damaging someone's reputation by telling a lie keeps being a very, very bad thing. But there are ways to deal with a bad guy, other than initiating force with retaliatory force is not applicable. Bad guys can be punished by ostracism and boycott.

But as Craig24 pointed out, damaging someone's reputation by telling a lie is an attack on facts - a falsifying of reality that deliberately causes harm to another. Slander and libel are done out of malicious intent - with the deliberate intent to cause harm to someone. While coersion can be one application of force, it's not the only one - it's still wrong to initiate force against someone if the only desire IS to use force and to cause harm. How then can one argue that force to cause harm is not ok, but falsification of reality in order to cause harm IS?

[DonAthos]

But as Craig24 pointed out, damaging someone's reputation by telling a lie is an attack on facts - a falsifying of reality that deliberately causes harm to another.

I feel like I've had little touches of this conversation here and there across a number of threads, but I don't have this pinned down yet.

Let's start here: is reputation property?

I contend that it is not -- that property refers only to "material values," and that reputation is immaterial.

The argument for reputation as property is what? That courts have considered it such? I cannot defer to their opinion, but if I can examine the reasoning that supports their conclusion, maybe I'll finally conclude the same. That a person works to achieve reputation? Well, okay. I work to achieve my wife's love for me; is her love for me also my property?

So. What is property exactly? Is it "whatever we work to achieve"? If so, I have about a hundred examples on tap that I don't think we'd consider property. It must have greater definition than that. Let's define property and then examine the nature of "reputation" to see whether it fits our criteria.

[Greebo]

Ok, how about this: Property are those values that man earns, rightfully, through work and/or trade.

"Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values." - Rand

Now this raises the question : Is reputation a material value? Intellectual property is a material value, and yet the actual property isn't a book or a cd or a blueprint or other material thing, but the arrangement of concepts that the book, cd or blueprint represents. A reputation, likewise, has no material existence, but as Rand herself acknowledged (mentioned elsewhere above), is a necessary tool for making reasonable evaluations of others without requiring us to become subject experts in every subject on the planet.

If a reputation is used to determine whether one will work with some other (say, a contractor), then that reputation is OF material value to that contractor. What that contractor has earned is the right to have people form opinions about him based upon his actions, and while he has no right to direct the nature of their opinion, I contend that he HAS earned the facts about his actions that are used as the basis of those opinions. Those facts about what he did and what he is are HIS FACTS, and his alone - he caused them to exist just as surely as Hank Reardon caused Reardon Metal to exist - and when someone puts forth falsehoods as if they were facts, they corupt the basis that should be used in the forming of those opinions. They destroy his property - the facts about him - without any right to do so.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Greebo

[DonAthos]

Hey Greebo,

Thanks for indulging me.

Ok, how about this: Property are those values that man earns, rightfully, through work and/or trade.

Upon first reading, I was like, hey hey, woah woah... "values" generally, not "material values"? But then I kept reading and relaxed. I don't know if this will turn out to be the "one and only true definition," but we'll proceed on this basis for now, assuming that we accept the addition of "material":

Property are those material values that man earns, rightfully, through work and/or trade.

"Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values." - Rand

Yes. I've been coming back to this quote, and all of the others under "Property Rights" in the Lexicon a lot lately.

Now this raises the question : Is reputation a material value?

Exactly.

Intellectual property is a material value...

Er... it is? We might have to slow down a bit here.

Perhaps we should have some agreement on what we're looking for in a "material value." I'm looking for something of value, constituted of some material. I think that both of those aspects are crucial. So for instance, a bicycle is potentially a material value, and should a man rightfully earn a bicycle through work and/or trade, I would correspondingly argue that this bicycle is his property.

But the concept of bicycles is not a material value. Concepts are not themselves made of material, and so I cannot yet agree that this has anything to do with "property."

To continue...

...and yet the actual property isn't a book or a cd or a blueprint or other material thing...

Right. I hope you can see the problem I'm having with your formulation here (paraphrased):

"Intellectual property is a material value and yet isn't any material thing."

On its face, this sounds like a contradiction.

...but the arrangement of concepts that the book, cd or blueprint represents.

I agree that such arrangements of concepts are the subject of Intellectual Property, but not that these arrangements are material. And if they are not material, then I believe that they fail to satisfy our agreed criteria for property.

A reputation, likewise, has no material existence...

Agreed.

...but as Rand herself acknowledged (mentioned elsewhere above), is a necessary tool for making reasonable evaluations of others without requiring us to become subject experts in every subject on the planet.

Whether this is or is not the case seems to me a separate discussion (and possibly a Utilitarian argument). Right now I'm just concerned with whether reputation is property, and I don't believe that this argues one way or the other with regards to that proposition.

If a reputation is used to determine whether one will work with some other (say, a contractor), then that reputation is OF material value to that contractor.

Meaning that it helps him to acquire material values? Perhaps. But again, that was not our criteria. I can argue to you that the love of my wife helps me to acquire material values, but again, I do not consider her love for me "my property."

What that contractor has earned is the right to have people form opinions about him based upon his actions, and while he has no right to direct the nature of their opinion, I contend that he HAS earned the facts about his actions that are used as the basis of those opinions.

Over the course of these discussions, I've seen the word "fact" used in some ways that have made me... uncomfortable. I've read about facts coming under "attack," and here being "earned." I agree that there's some metaphorical meaning here, but I don't know that a man can "earn a fact" in a strict sense.

In the name of justice, I'd agree with you that if I've been a hardworking, honest, forthright individual, then people ought to treat me as such (just as they ought to treat me in the manner that the "facts stipulate" in all cases). However, I stop short of having the law require anyone to treat me as a hardworking, honest, forthright individual, whatever my individual merit. And again, whatever else they may be, facts of themselves are certainly not material, and therefore not property under our definition.

Those facts about what he did and what he is are HIS FACTS, and his alone...

I apologize, but I cannot agree that people can own facts.

It seems at this point that you're implicitly operating under an idea of "property" where it is "anything a person causes to come into existence," whether material or not -- maybe it was not accidental that you left "material" off of your proffered definition above -- and it further seems that you've no longer any good reason to deny me ownership over my wife's love for me. I caused it to exist, just as surely as Hank Rearden caused Rearden Metal to exist, after all.

- he caused them to exist just as surely as Hank Reardon caused Reardon Metal to exist - and when someone puts forth falsehoods as if they were facts, they corupt the basis that should be used in the forming of those opinions. They destroy his property - the facts about him - without any right to do so.

I have disagreed with your reasoning sufficiently so that I cannot agree with your conclusions. Perhaps we need to start again with another definition? Are we quite sure we're looking for "material values"? Or is there any sensible formulation that would justify Intellectual Property, and reputation, but not "my wife's love for me"?

Edited April 6, 2012 by DonAthos

[Grames]

I have disagreed with your reasoning sufficiently so that I cannot agree with your conclusions. Perhaps we need to start again with another definition? Are we quite sure we're looking for "material values"? Or is there any sensible formulation that would justify Intellectual Property, and reputation, but not "my wife's love for me"?

Rights are freedoms to act without physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Property rights are freedoms to act (use, consume, transfer or dispose) upon objects external to a person's body (objects not a referent of the concept 'person').

What is protected by a property right of reputation is not control over the minds or persons of other people but the control over the representation over one's own history. That control over one's own history is limited to negating some (not all) falsehoods about that history.

[DonAthos]

Rights are freedoms to act without physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Property rights are freedoms to act (use, consume, transfer or dispose) upon objects external to a person's body (objects not a referent of the concept 'person').

Objects "not a referent of the concept 'person'" and also material. "It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. [emphasis added]" Perhaps this is a redundant observation given "objects"? But due to the nature of the conversation, and the topics under discussion, I think it's important to emphasize. (And also to give you an opportunity to disagree on this point, if need be.)

What is protected by a property right of reputation is not control over the minds or persons of other people but the control over the representation over one's own history.

It was (and remains) important for me to try to determine "what is property" -- and how that pertains to reputation -- before assessing how to implement property rights of reputation. I think this is important. Before there is a "right to life," something must be living; before there is "liberty" there must be an entity capable of choice and action; before there are "property rights" there must be property. Or in other words, a corpse has no right to life or liberty. And if reputation is not property, as I am contending, then there is no property right of reputation, however we attempt to implement such a thing.

Besides this, I must quibble over the phrase "one's own history." I have a personal history in the sense of a history which pertains to me, or is about me, or recounts my life. But I do not own any history. History, as such, cannot be owned.

That control over one's own history is limited to negating some (not all) falsehoods about that history.

If someone tells a lie about me, I have "control over 'my' history" to "negate" that falsehood in the sense that I may dispute it. Why do I need more than this, and by what right would I assert such control over the actions of other people? I don't think we can get around the central question of "what is property" to answer the question of "is reputation property?"

But okay. Let's suppose for the moment that there is a property right of reputation, or more generally of "one's own history." What principled reason would you propose to give me control to negate some of the falsehoods about that history... but "not all"?

[Craig24]

Besides this, I must quibble over the phrase "one's own history." I have a personal history in the sense of a history which pertains to me, or is about me, or recounts my life. But I do not own any history. History, as such, cannot be owned.

It isn't history as such that anyone claims is owned. It is your actions that are owned. "one's own history" is a reference to those actions.

[DonAthos]

It isn't history as such that anyone claims is owned.

Okay, that's fine. The phrasing "one's own history" (and especially given the surrounding conversation) just left me feeling the need to clarify. (Just as if I were to talk about "my own chair," I would in fact mean that chair which I own.) I suspect that we've been (at least implicitly) discussing owning concepts, reputations, and somehow facts themselves, so histories didn't seem so very out of step.

It is your actions that are owned. "one's own history" is a reference to those actions.

All right. But are actions "ownable"?

By substituting one non-material concept for another, I don't think I'm closer to resolving the question as to whether the non-material can be property at all. Consider this quote (from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal):

Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.

Rand appears to be speaking of the creation of private property. Does this have anything at all to do with "actions"? Is there any applicability here?

[Nicky]

What Rand meant by the expression "physical force" was coercion, compulsion and interference by one person on another person without that person's consent.

No, she used the word "physical" to make sure no one goes around pretending she meant what you are claiming here that she meant: non-physical means of interference.

Physical force is force that acts on objects in the physical world. The person equivocating on the word force is clearly you.

Ok, how about this: Property are those values that man earns, rightfully, through work and/or trade.

"Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values." - Rand

So you basically took this Ayn Rand quote, and removed the word "material" out of her description of property, to change its meaning. Would the love of my girlfriend (a value I clearly earned) be my property too, by this modified definition?

[Grames]

No, she used the word "physical" to make sure no one goes around pretending she meant what you are claiming here that she meant: non-physical means of interference.

Physical force is force that acts on objects in the physical world. The person equivocating on the word force is clearly you.

LOL. Better inform Peikoff as well:

Physical force is coercion exercised by physical agency, such as, among many other examples, by punching a man in the face, incarcerating him, shooting him, or seizing his property. "Initiation" means starting the use of force against an innocent individual(s), one who has not himself started its use against others.

You are on the wrong side of this one.