Wealthy Nemesis

[Joynewyeary]

"A" inherited lots of money and is wealthy for that reason. "A" anonymously publishes his or her own crackpot theories in some subject area such as physics or psychology. "A" is married.

"B" publishes (under his or her own name) a proof that the theories are fundamentally unsound. "B" is not a member of a union. "B" is very happily married with three children (one four-year-old, one seven-year-old, one eight-year-old).

A hates B because of the debunking. A decides to get secret vengeance. A's spouse meets B's spouse several times. A's spouse doesn't know it, but A deliberately arranged the meetings. The spouses become friends. A uses the relationship between A's spouse and B's spouse to find out where B works. A offers the employer money (as much as necessary) to dismiss B from employment and to sign a nondisclosure agreement that forbids the employer from telling B the reason for the dismissal. Every time B gets a new job, A arranges for B to be dismissed.

Consequences:

B and B's spouse are forced to cut their expenses and move to a bad neighborhood. They decide that the most responsible thing to do is to put their three children up for adoption because the neighborhood is unsafe for their children and they can no longer afford to keep their children in good schools. A condition of the adoption is that B and B's spouse are forbidden from communicating with their children. B and B's spouse will never again communicate with their children unless their children, upon reaching adulthood, choose to (and find a way to) initiate contact with B or B's spouse.

B's spouse remains in contact with A's spouse even after the move. After five years of B's failure to keep a job for any reasonable length of time, B's spouse decides that B must have some character flaw that B's spouse can't detect but that B's employers can detect. B's spouse divorces B. Within a few years, B's spouse gets married to someone else.

After B's ex-spouse gets remarried, there is no further communication between B and B's ex-spouse. B is finally able to get and keep a job because A no longer has a way of finding out where B works. Eventually, A's spouse finds out what happened and tells B the whole story.

Question: in a legal system based on Objectivist principles, would B have any basis for a claim against A?

Edited May 31, 2005 by Joynewyeary

[Colonel Rebel]

What would B's claim be against A be? Emotional Distress? Loss of job and wages? Would A's Spouse be willing to testify to such things? I must be honest and admit I'm only a novice student of Objectivism (though a studious and passionate one), but the first topic that comes to mind per Objectivist principles is the issue of force and how that can be applied, if at all, to this situation. Do the consequences of A's actions come as a result in what we would call 'force' against B? Does this also include the actions of B's employer and A's spouse? For now, I would say 'yes' on all three counts, though I won't pronounce to what degree each is responsible in regards to the outcome.

Also, I'm a but insure as to what you mean by 'claim' in a legal system based on Objectivist Principles. What would this be in your opinion?

[Eric Mathis]

You could have made your question much shorter by simply asking whether in a laissez faire society it is possible for a wealthy man to bribe people not to associate with a less wealthy man and thus bring about the ruin of that man.

Yes, it is possible, and, no, such bribery does not constitute a violation of rights. It is equally possible that you'll find in such a society people who are above bribery and who would extend help to a man suffering from such persecution.

If this hypothetical case is the best argument against laissez faire, the the case for freedom is very strong indeed.

[JMeganSnow]

People will accept bribes from total strangers to fire one of their own employees? Besides, if you offer money like that to someone that has so little integrity as to ACCEPT it, what guarantee do you even have that they will do as they said? Honestly.

[Lemuel]

B first hires an attorney, having been told that the ruination of his life has been at the hands of A. B's attorney hires a private detective to verify B's claims. This can be done from profits generated by B's A: Debunked book. If the book didn't produce that much revenue, an attorney can be found - discretely - to investigate the claim to the point of accepting the case on a pro bono basis.

Even though A forced B's former employers to sign non-disclosure agreements, the fact that A not just had a hand in B's serial dismissals, but indeed made it a personal goal, can be discovered covertly, but not illegally. A reasonable case can be then made against A for defamation (or some related charge of slander, libel, etc.). B's attorney files a civil suit against A.

Once this is done, B's attorney contacts Oprah Winfrey, John Stossel, Dr Phil McGraw, and any other media personality with the audience and interest to run the story. B now has media coverage due to the fact that his family was dissolved by A's evil deeds, aided by the fact that family tragedies play well in TV ratings.

While people are interested in the family story, a number of people interested in the intellectual argument in A: Debunked seek the book and purchase it. Regardless of the issue covered in the text, profits are generated for B.

A will attempt to use B's unfortunate situation as an argument that B simply seeks publicity. After all, A claims, B's book was a failure, and this failure led to his difficulties in maintaining employment, his poverty, estrangement from his children, and his divorce.

Now, assuming that B's book was right (as corroborated by expert plaintiff witnesses), and that B's attorney has conviction and talent, A's evil will be exposed, and a financial sum awarded. B - despite his torn-apart family and poor employment track record - is vindicated. From there, B can exploit the attention gained by the media, as well as by his intellectual peers, to get his life back together.

A, having paid the award to B, is barred - by court order - from having any further contact with B, his family, or to have any financial ties to B. Anything A does from this point is a direct violation of court order, and subsequently he becomes a criminal, having violated a legal court judgement.

- - - - -

It's just one possible scenario, but it shows how B - even though he was the victim of totally legal actions by A - can fight back. The hard part comes next, as sympathetic legislators may attempt to exploit the situation by passing laws that restrict corporate ownership, investment, or provisions of those contracts (such as interference with employment policies). This is how bureaucracies are made.

[it sounds like either a good Lex Luthor yarn or a bad The Practice episode, though ...]

[Joynewyeary]

It is equally possible that you'll find in such a society people who are above bribery and who would extend help to a man suffering from such persecution.

B doesn't know that B is suffering from persecution. How would anyone else know it?

Why are you considering what is "equally possible"? I described a scenario. Are you saying that it is actually impossible or are you saying that you want to ignore it and think about something more pleasant instead?

If this hypothetical case is the best argument against laissez faire, then the case for freedom is very strong indeed.

It's a question, not an argument. So it cannot be the best argument. You need an argument to justify a particular answer to the question. Maybe there is a conflict between the answer given by Objectivism and the answer given by your own concept of justice. If there is a conflict, then you can evade the issue or you can attempt to resolve the conflict.

If the law said to me, "You are not permitted to behave like A" then that would not motivate me to think that I am suffering from a lack of freedom. How about you?

[Joynewyeary]

People will accept bribes from total strangers to fire one of their own employees? 

I assume that you are setting up some kind of contrast between "total strangers" and "their own employees." Maybe the person who makes the decision to dismiss B is a manager who is more than one level above B in the company management and does not personally interact with B. Maybe the person who makes the decision to dismiss B is an owner and not a manager and is not even acquainted with B.

Besides, if you offer money like that to someone that has so little integrity as to ACCEPT it [...]

The employer employs B in order to make money. Suppose there is an opportunity to replace B with a machine. There may be a high initial cost to get the machine, but suppose it is expected that, over a six year period, the machine will cost only what it would have cost to employ B for three years. If the employer decided to replace B with such a machine, would the company lack integrity?

Now, suppose that A offers to pay a lump sum equal to three years of B's wages or salary. The employer doesn't have to worry about any technical problems that might arise from using a machine. The employer can replace B with a person. Yet, the employer will get cost savings as though B had been replaced with the machine.

You were not told that the employer knows why A wants B to be dismissed.

What persuades you that the employer has very little integrity?

[...] what guarantee do you even have that they will do as they said?

The employer enters into a legal contract with A. The employer does not want to be sued for breach of contract.

[Eric Mathis]

B doesn't know that B is suffering from persecution.  How would anyone else know it?

How do you know it?

Why are you considering what is "equally possible"?  I described a scenario.  Are you saying that it is actually impossible or are you saying that you want to ignore it and think about something more pleasant instead?

Read my post carefully. I’ve already acknowledged the possibility of your scenario. I now invite you to acknowledge the possibility that someone may lend a helping hand to a talented person who keeps getting fired for mysterious reasons.

It's a question, not an argument.  So it cannot be the best argument.  You need an argument to justify a particular answer to the question.

It’s not even a very good question. You took a whole page to ask something that could have been phrased in one sentence. In any case, you now have an answer to your query and are free to devote your intellect to weightier matters.

Maybe there is a conflict between the answer given by Objectivism and the answer given by your own concept of justice.

Just when and where did Objectivism deliver itself of this answer?

If there is a conflict, then you can evade the issue or you can attempt to resolve the conflict.

There are an infinite number of silly scenarios one could pose with regard to a laissez faire society, such as, “What if someone figured out how to suck all the oxygen out of the atmosphere and charged the rest of us to breathe?”

Since such events have a very low probability of occurring, they don’t make for a worthwhile use of our cogitative talents. But, of course, I can only speak for myself.

If the law said to me, "You are not permitted to behave like A" then that would not motivate me to think that I am suffering from a lack of freedom.  How about you?

If the law says that two citizens are not free to enter into a contract, even though such a contract does not violate the rights of any third party, then we would have a legal system that is not upholding property rights and is therefore self-contradictory.

Edited June 1, 2005 by Eric Mathis

[JMeganSnow]

The employer enters into a legal contract with A.  The employer does not want to be sued for breach of contract.

This ignores the fact that, under laissez-faire capitalism only contracts that are registered with the government and have fees paid on them can enjoy legal protection. If you don't do this it amounts to a "handshake" deal and if one of the parties decides to violate it the other doesn't have a leg to stand on in court. The government under laissez-faire capitalism is an agent of the people; what is more important, it is a paid agent.

Contracts that are insured by the government become a matter of government record; anyone can go down to the courthouse and say, "Can I see the terms of the agreement between these two parties, please?" Talk about a smoking gun.

If you offer someone a bribe, you are depending on their lack of integrity . . . yet you are also depending on their having the integrity to uphold this deal. It's a contradiction; an attempt to have your cake and eat it, too.

There's an old saying that an honest politician is one who stays bought. A humorous saying, because this actually doesn't happen.

[Eric Mathis]

This ignores the fact that, under laissez-faire capitalism only contracts that are registered with the government and have fees paid on them can enjoy legal protection. 

Contracts that are insured by the government become a matter of government record; anyone can go down to the courthouse and say, "Can I see the terms of the agreement between these two parties, please?"  Talk about a smoking gun.

While I think you have made some excellent points in your discussion with Joynewyeary, I must take exception to your most recent post.

First of all, Ayn Rand’s proposal for contract insurance was, in her words, “only . . . an illustration,” [her emphasis] and only one of “many possible methods of voluntary government financing.” Look here here for one Objectivist proposal for funding government that does not even mention contract insurance.

More importantly, I question the wisdom of any legal system in which “contracts that are insured by the government become a matter of government record” and would be open to anyone who wished to peer at them. I’m sure that you are aware that in the case of many formal agreements it is not in the interest of one or more parties to have the terms of the contract made public. For example, employment contracts often forbid disclosure of a salary amount in order to keep other employees from demanding the same pay. Consider, too, manufacturing contracts containing certain trade secrets that if revealed would serve as a boost to competitors in the field.

So even if contracts had to be registered with the government to qualify for protection, making their contents known to all curious parties would be a terrible idea.

[softwareNerd]

Joynewyeary: Is there an underlying principle you are seeking to derive from this example?

You asked if there would be legal recourse under an Objectivist legal system. Well... suppose there was? Suppose for a moment, that a civil action were allowed ... give it a name if you like ("egregious stalking"?). Well, what of it?

On the other hand, let's assume for a moment, that there would be no legal recourse. What of it?

In either of the two possibilities, what are the larger principles that you draw?

(If only we could be living in an age where we start to confront these borderline issues. Right now many employers are terrified about being sued for the slightest appearance of "bias" in hiring and firing. )

[JMeganSnow]

First of all, Ayn Rand’s proposal for contract insurance was, in her words, “only . . . an illustration,” [her emphasis] and only one of “many possible methods of voluntary government financing.”

Did you maybe read a little further into that essay? I quote:

The premise to check (and to challenge) in this context is the primordial notion that any governmental services (even legitimate ones) should be given to the citizens gratuitously.  In order fully to translate into practice the American concept of the government as a servant of the citizens, one has to regard the government as a paid servant.  Then, on that basis, one can proceed to devise the appropriate means of tying government revenues directly to the government services rendered.

If you're going to get a service, and enforcing legal contracts IS a service, from the government, you have to PAY for it, regardless of whether said contract insurance is used as the primary means of collecting government revenues or what. IIRC she mentions in CUI that providing enforcement of contracts for free "amounts to a subsidy" but I can't recall the page.

More importantly, I question the wisdom of any legal system in which “contracts that are insured by the government become a matter of government record” and would be open to anyone who wished to peer at them.  I’m sure that you are aware that in the case of many formal agreements it is not in the interest of one or more parties to have the terms of the contract made public.  For example, employment contracts often forbid disclosure of a salary amount in order to keep other employees from demanding the same pay.  Consider, too, manufacturing contracts containing certain trade secrets that if revealed would serve as a boost to competitors in the field.

Now, let's think about this, here. How is a government going to objectively enforce a contract if it never has a COPY of said contract? It's like saying that you can go up to the patent office and announce, vaguely, so as not to "boost" your competitors, that you've invented a better mousetrap and be granted a patent without ever having to prove this claim! Ever take a contract to a notary public? They keep a copy for a reason.

Oh, and employment contracts are an absurd example, because the government has control over things like pay scales etc. The REASON it's in anyone's interest to keep information such as that private is because the employees, under current law are ABLE to DEMAND pay they don't deserve. Under laissez-faire capitalism, no such DEMANDS will be possible. You can ASK for a raise, but if your employer says no, your option is to look for a job elsewhere, not SUE him. Under laissez-faire capitalism it would likely be beneficial instead of detrimental to publish your pay scale information; it would make it easier to attract the sort of employees you can afford that can do the required work.

Trade secrets, patents, etc. are likewise kept secret because our government has ceased to protect intellectual property rights as an absolute and instead dispenses with them on a whim. Anyway, contracts don't have to stipulate the details of a process in order to stipulate terms and conditions, so there goes that objection as well.

So even if contracts had to be registered with the government to qualify for protection, making their contents known to all curious parties would be a terrible idea.

This, however, is a true statement; it would constitute a violation of privacy, and so I retract my suggestion that "anyone" would have access to said records.

In any case, there are so many fundamental contradictions involved in, as was said, the million and one absurd hypothetical situations that we could sit here all day and point them out. The constant proposal of these hypothetical situations is really more a demonstration of the proposer's inability to think in terms of abstract principles.

[Joynewyeary]

Joynewyeary: Is there an underlying principle you are seeking to derive from this example?

No, but if you want to put forward any ideas along those lines, I am certainly willing to discuss them.

If only we could be living in an age where we start to confront these borderline issues.

Do you think you could put forward a persuasive argument to support the claim that the issue is correctly characterized as a "borderline" issue? I don't have any particular quarrel with that characterization, but it seems that other participants on this thread would!

[softwareNerd]

Do you think you could put forward a persuasive argument to support the claim that the issue is correctly characterized as a "borderline" issue?

I take that back. It is inaccurate. It is more in the nature of a "the devil is in the details" issue that is often brought up as a challenge against Objectivism. "If you cannot work out an Objectivist constitution and all the detailed laws that follow from it, then you should abandon Objectivism and srtick with the current hodge-podge". Edited June 2, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Eric Mathis]

If you're going to get a service, and enforcing legal contracts IS a service, from the government, you have to PAY for it, regardless of whether said contract insurance is used as the primary means of collecting government revenues or what.  IIRC she mentions in CUI that providing enforcement of contracts for free "amounts to a subsidy" but I can't recall the page.

So, if someone kidnaps my daughter, am I required to pay for the police service of sending out Amber Alerts, running a phone bank to receive tips, dispatching detectives to follow up on leads, tracking the kidnappers across several states, surrounding them with a SWAT team, negotiating for hours, and then finally rescuing the child? Such a service could cost over a million dollars. Would the police certify that I had a good credit line before beginning their investigation?

Now, let's think about this, here.  How is a government going to objectively enforce a contract if it never has a COPY of said contract?  It's like saying that you can go up to the patent office and announce, vaguely, so as not to "boost" your competitors, that you've invented a better mousetrap and be granted a patent without ever having to prove this claim!  Ever take a contract to a notary public?  They keep a copy for a reason.

Are you suggesting that the government is unable to objectively enforce contracts now? For it is undeniable that breach of contract cases are tried all day long in every courthouse in America -- without the original contract being on file in any government office. By the way, I've had dozens of contracts notarized without once being asked to leave a copy with the notary public. In any case, even non-notarized contracts are enforceable under present law.

Oh, and employment contracts are an absurd example, because the government has control over things like pay scales etc.

Really? In my rusty old file cabinet is a 1993 employment contract for me to teach for nine months in a private school for a total annual salary of $35,000. Now can you tell me what government statute controlled my pay scale?

  The REASON it's in anyone's interest to keep information such as that private is because the employees, under current law are ABLE to DEMAND pay they don't deserve. Under laissez-faire capitalism, no such DEMANDS will be possible. You can ASK for a raise, but if your employer says no, your option is to look for a job elsewhere, not SUE him.

We didn’t have laissez faire capitalism in 1993. I demanded $40,000 and was refused. In refusing me, did my employer violate any law you know of?

Under laissez-faire capitalism it would likely be beneficial instead of detrimental to publish your pay scale information; it would make it easier to attract the sort of employees you can afford that can do the required work.

But what if it is not in my best interests? Currently, I employ six people. They are paid different wages and receive different benefits, depending on job performance and other factors. However, I do not publicize to what each one makes. It is to my advantage not to let Employee A know what B makes. If he does, A may use that knowledge to leverage a raise or increased medical benefits. In short, why must we assume that it is beneficial in all cases for the public to know what somebody is paying his work force?

Trade secrets, patents, etc. are likewise kept secret because our government has ceased to protect intellectual property rights as an absolute and instead dispenses with them on a whim.

Even if the government did a superb job of enforcing patents, it would still be in a manufacturer’s interest to keep his business as private as possible. There may be some manufacturing processes which do not qualify for patents.

Anyway, contracts don't have to stipulate the details of a process in order to stipulate terms and conditions, so there goes that objection as well.

Suppose I’m ordering sound cards from another manufacturer for the computers I make. If I do not specify exactly what I want (“stipulate the details of a process”), what guarantee do I have that the sound cards will fit into the motherboards of my computers? And if my contract does not stipulate the details, how can I recover from my supplier’s error in a court of law?

This, however, is a true statement; it would constitute a violation of privacy, and so I retract my suggestion that "anyone" would have access to said records.

God, I wish half the people I debate with had your integrity.