Read on Twitter
1\\ I see a lot of Libertarians go wrong by applying a property rights framework to reputation
This leads them to draw inconsistent conclusions about slander / libel / censorship
Typically something like, "Unencumbered free speech, unless it harms someone's reputation"
This leads them to draw inconsistent conclusions about slander / libel / censorship
Typically something like, "Unencumbered free speech, unless it harms someone's reputation"
2\\ Now, maybe there are *other* frameworks in which it is internally consistent to oppose libel, but a libertarian property rights framework is not one of them
Why?
Because your reputation is not your property...
Why?
Because your reputation is not your property...
3\\ The trouble is in the way we speak about reputation
"My reputation" sounds like something I own, like my body or my house
But that's just a figure of speech
"My reputation" is something that exists in the brains of Alice, Bob, Carl, Dave...
"My reputation" sounds like something I own, like my body or my house
But that's just a figure of speech
"My reputation" is something that exists in the brains of Alice, Bob, Carl, Dave...
4\\ How does a particular reputation get in people's brains?
By truthful acts faithfully recorded
By mistakes and misinterpretations
By false speech
By truthful acts faithfully recorded
By mistakes and misinterpretations
By false speech
5\\ The trouble with defining a bunch of other people's mental states as "mine" is that it creates a positive right out of thin air, and tramples more fundamental negative rights
Positive rights are ALWAYS inconsistent with negative rights, which are the bedrock of libertarianism
Positive rights are ALWAYS inconsistent with negative rights, which are the bedrock of libertarianism
6\\ If Alice has a right not to allow Bob to create incorrect mental states in the brain of Carl...
Then Bob no longer has a negative right to be free from interference with his body (vocal cords)
Then Bob no longer has a negative right to be free from interference with his body (vocal cords)
7\\ Now, a libertarian might agree with the logic of this argument but still be tempted to argue against libel on the basis of consequences
"Principles be damned, unhindered libel is too atrocious to countenance!"
But even here, he probably errs...
"Principles be damned, unhindered libel is too atrocious to countenance!"
But even here, he probably errs...
8\\ Much of the sting of libel arises not from the libel itself, but from *libel laws*, which endow rumor with an aura of legitimacy
"Wow, Trump must have peed on those hookers, because if it weren't true, media outlets would never take the legal risk of claiming it"
"Wow, Trump must have peed on those hookers, because if it weren't true, media outlets would never take the legal risk of claiming it"
9\\ Now imagine a world without libel laws
Random rumors are suddenly less credible, because they are costless to originate
In biology, this principle is well understood: signals can only have high fidelity where they are costly to fake
Random rumors are suddenly less credible, because they are costless to originate
In biology, this principle is well understood: signals can only have high fidelity where they are costly to fake
10\\ cc @MarkChangizi
