Why is blackmail illegal?

[nigelloring]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail

[ScottieK]

To protect the politicians that voted it into law /images/graemlins/wink.gif

ScottieK

[guesswest]

Because it's not nice?

[Piers]

“Give me the money in the till or I will kill your” Said with some firearm that happens to be legal due to daft gun laws.

I do not see why this should be outlawed. As long as the gun is not fired or any other damage to property or person is done. Indeed if any one is breaking the law it should be the individual at the check out, if he steels money from his employers to give to you.



Oh and just because this is after all the internet /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Borodog]

That's not blackmail. That's armed robbery.

Blackmail should not be illegal. And without knowing any of the details, I am almost positive that ScottieK's answer is historically correct.

[ScottieK]

Well it was a good guess.

Seriously, the blackmailer is seeking to force someone to do something against their will (pay money, do something, whatever) with threat of harm. That's called extortion. Since it's harm to that person's reputation by publicizing statements (true or otherwise,) it's called blackmail....although the original term more accurately described a common extortion racket. Ill gotten gains and all that.

If blackmail were legal, there would be an unmitigated s##%storm of unsubstantiated or outright false claims against corporations, politicians, and God knows what else. I think frivolous lawsuits are blackmail, and we're finally getting around to discouraging those.

Revealing the truth about someone isn't illegal. Seeking to gain from threat of revealing that truth, thankfully, is illegal.

ScottieK

[Borodog]

You make a good argument, but I still don't think it can be morally justified.

Let's say that you had an affair, and I became aware of it. I could just tell your wife and ruin both your lives, and I would be no better off.

I could of course keep my mouth shut, but I'd be no better off.

Or I could blackmail you. You get to keep your wife and marriage and half your stuff, your wife gets to retain her blissful ignorance, and I am financially better off.

I think clearly the third option is best. Furthermore, you neglect the effect that fear of blackmail may have in detering bad, blackmailable, behavior.

Now, I do believe that continuous blackmail rackets are actionable. In otherwise, if we come to an agreement, you pay me and i agree to keep your secret, and then I come and shake you down again, I've violated our contract. You can refuse to pay and if I tell, you can file suit against me to regain the money I fraudulently blackmailed from you. You can use it to pay your divorce lawyer.

[guesswest]

I think you're overlooking the fact that blackmail is illegal because most people find it morally repugnant.

But setting that aside, there is no 'contract' in blackmail, persons will not be willing to report violations of supposed contract by a blackmailer out of precisely the same fear of public exposure which sees them suitable for blackmail in the first place. And there are loads of other social problems with it too - corruption is one, we already have enough public figures doing 'favors' for those with compromising info on them without legally sanctioning the process.

[Piers]

In my example you’re threatening to do something illegal, while with blackmail you are not necessarily threatening to do anything illegal.

So what difference does that make?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're overlooking the fact that blackmail is illegal because most people find it morally repugnant.

But setting that aside, there is no 'contract' in blackmail, persons will not be willing to report violations of supposed contract by a blackmailer out of precisely the same fear of public exposure which sees them suitable for blackmail in the first place. And there are loads of other social problems with it too - corruption is one, we already have enough public figures doing 'favors' for those with compromising info on them without legally sanctioning the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there is a contract. You could argue duress invalidates it, but since the "threat" is not a threat of physical force, all you're really presenting the blackmailed person with is a simple EV decision. Keep my marriage, or keep $10,000? It's not like there's a gun to you head.

I think you're wrong about it being illegal because most people find it morally repugnant. There are plenty of things that the majority of people find morally repugnant that shouldn't be illegal. Supposedly the government exists to protect the minority from the majority, doesn't it?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
In my example you’re threatening to do something illegal, while with blackmail you are not necessarily threatening to do anything illegal.

So what difference does that make?

[/ QUOTE ]

Illegality isn't the issue (you should know that since I'm an anarchist). The issue is force. Your threat is a threat of force. My "threat" is simply that I'm going to communicate information to a third party. There's a huge difference.

[guesswest]

You're not threatening to do something legal, anymore than shooting your spouse is threatening to do something legal like claim insurance money.

The action itself is illegal, and for good reason.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
But setting that aside, there is no 'contract' in blackmail, persons will not be willing to report violations of supposed contract by a blackmailer out of precisely the same fear of public exposure which sees them suitable for blackmail in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, and I forgot this. Then what's the point of it being illegal, if they're not going to report it? The fact that it does eventually get reported and acted upon negates your point, since it would happen whether or not the person was criminally prosecuted or whether you filed suit against them.

[guesswest]

And morality is all any criminal law is about, it's just a case of how reductionist you want to get.

But setting that aside, blackmail being illegal just makes sense at a utilitarian level. It makes sense because nobody would want to be blackmailed.

[guesswest]

Cross posts here......

The fact is blackmail very rarely gets reported. That's why it's so insidous and damaging. But if it being illegal prevents the occurence of blackmail even a tiny amount, and it probably does, then it's a law worth having.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Because it is coercive.

[ScottieK]

Borodog -

I'm sure the politicians had self-preservation in mind /images/graemlins/wink.gif Glad you read my post.

[ QUOTE ]
You make a good argument, but I still don't think it can be morally justified.

Let's say that you had an affair, and I became aware of it. I could just tell your wife and ruin both your lives, and I would be no better off.

I could of course keep my mouth shut, but I'd be no better off.

Or I could blackmail you. You get to keep your wife and marriage and half your stuff, your wife gets to retain her blissful ignorance, and I am financially better off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I would be much worse off because I lost half my stuff. Cheating is a violation of the contract between my wife and me, namely marriage, which you are a not a part of. You should not expect to gain from my violation of that contract. If you want to do what is morally right, you would tell my wife that I was a cheating bastard and not expect a dime.

[ QUOTE ]
I think clearly the third option is best. Furthermore, you neglect the effect that fear of blackmail may have in detering bad, blackmailable, behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. But I think the negative effect of allowing people to blackmail each other with true or untrue allegations would outweigh whatever benefits this would bring. In this environment, you could not trust anyone. Everyone would dig into everyone else's past and hope to hit the jackpot. They do that nowadays...but they write books about it instead.

[ QUOTE ]

Now, I do believe that continuous blackmail rackets are actionable. In otherwise, if we come to an agreement, you pay me and i agree to keep your secret, and then I come and shake you down again, I've violated our contract. You can refuse to pay and if I tell, you can file suit against me to regain the money I fraudulently blackmailed from you. You can use it to pay your divorce lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why contracts that agree to illegal actions are unenforceable in a court of law. And that's why blackmail is fraudulent in the first place. You could send someone else to blackmail me with the same information. Where does it end?

Wow...this is fun. Reminds me of Business Law class.

ScottieK

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog -

I'm sure the politicians had self-preservation in mind /images/graemlins/wink.gif Glad you read my post.

[ QUOTE ]
You make a good argument, but I still don't think it can be morally justified.

Let's say that you had an affair, and I became aware of it. I could just tell your wife and ruin both your lives, and I would be no better off.

I could of course keep my mouth shut, but I'd be no better off.

Or I could blackmail you. You get to keep your wife and marriage and half your stuff, your wife gets to retain her blissful ignorance, and I am financially better off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I would be much worse off because I lost half my stuff. Cheating is a violation of the contract between my wife and me, namely marriage, which you are a not a part of. You should not expect to gain from my violation of that contract. If you want to do what is morally right, you would tell my wife that I was a cheating bastard and not expect a dime.

[ QUOTE ]
I think clearly the third option is best. Furthermore, you neglect the effect that fear of blackmail may have in detering bad, blackmailable, behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. But I think the negative effect of allowing people to blackmail each other with true or untrue allegations would outweigh whatever benefits this would bring. In this environment, you could not trust anyone. Everyone would dig into everyone else's past and hope to hit the jackpot. They do that nowadays...but they write books about it instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still not sure what you're describing is a bad thing. Isn't a transparent society, where you have to worry that your evil deeds will be exposed, a good thing?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now, I do believe that continuous blackmail rackets are actionable. In otherwise, if we come to an agreement, you pay me and i agree to keep your secret, and then I come and shake you down again, I've violated our contract. You can refuse to pay and if I tell, you can file suit against me to regain the money I fraudulently blackmailed from you. You can use it to pay your divorce lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why contracts that agree to illegal actions are unenforceable in a court of law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what your point is, but this seems circular. Are you saying the contract is unenforceable because blackmail is illegal, and that blackmail is illegal because there is not an enforceably contract?

[ QUOTE ]
And that's why blackmail is fraudulent in the first place. You could send someone else to blackmail me with the same information. Where does it end?

[/ QUOTE ]

Non sequitor. An agent of mine would still be in violation of our contract. My violating of a contract doesn't make all contract fraudulent.

[ QUOTE ]
Wow...this is fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Debate is addictive. It should probably be illegal.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Cross posts here......

The fact is blackmail very rarely gets reported. That's why it's so insidous and damaging. But if it being illegal prevents the occurence of blackmail even a tiny amount, and it probably does, then it's a law worth having.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the fear of being blackmailed prevents the occurence of bad, blackmailable behavior even a tiny amount, and it probably does, then blackmail is worth allowing. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[FredBoots]

The simple answer is you don't want to live in a society where blackmail is legal. People would start going through other's garbage, taking pictures through bedroom windows and in public washrooms, etc, because it would become a profitable activity. We all have secrets (not all are immoral like adultery, but some simple things like impotence or being pregnant, for example), and I think it is reasonable to expect some privacy.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
Because it's not nice?

[/ QUOTE ]

[soon2bepro]

privacy has nothing to do with it.

as others pointed out, it's not "wrong" to give the truth away. but as soon as you start enforcing others to do something for you "or else", you're doing something that is wrong

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
privacy has nothing to do with it.

as others pointed out, it's not "wrong" to give the truth away. but as soon as you start enforcing others to do something for you "or else", you're doing something that is wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

There's your problem. There's no force or threat of force involved in blackmail.

[ScottieK]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm still not sure what you're describing is a bad thing. Isn't a transparent society, where you have to worry that your evil deeds will be exposed, a good thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

IF a transparent society is a good thing, then exposing evil deeds should be done for its own benefit. It shouldn't be used as a tool for extortionists.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why contracts that agree to illegal actions are unenforceable in a court of law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what your point is, but this seems circular. Are you saying the contract is unenforceable because blackmail is illegal, and that blackmail is illegal because there is not an enforceably contract?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Non sequitor. An agent of mine would still be in violation of our contract. My violating of a contract doesn't make all contract fraudulent.

[/ QUOTE ]

A blackmail contract is unenforceable in court because blackmail is illegal, just as a hitman's contract is unenforceable in court because murder is illegal. The existence of an unenforceable contract doesn't necessarily mean a violation of the law has occured. The point is how would you enforce such a contract? The enforcement of a blackmail contract would result in a violation of the law, extortion. Even if blackmail were legal, someone being blackmailed couldn't go to court without exposing whatever secret the blackmailer was threatening to expose. So I couldn't (wouldn't) take you to court if you gave me another shake down, whether it was you or an agent of yours. I'd probably just kill you or kill myself.

[ QUOTE ]
Debate is fun. It should probably be illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But it's not nearly as dangerous as blackmail.

ScottieK

[Borodog]

The question is WHY is blackmail illegal. Claiming that blackmail contracts are unenforceable because they are illegal and hence they should be illegal because they are unenforceable is circular.

As I said, if you were shaken down a second time, you have a number of options: 1) kill me or kill yourself. Either of these seem extreme, the first leaves you open to liability, the second is stupid. 2) Pay up again. Clearly this is unwise. If you've been shaken down twice, it's likely to continue. 3) Refuse to pay. At this point, if the blackmailer exposes your secret, he does so at his opwn risk, since you can now sue him for breach of contract. Not only will he not get any more money, but he'll lose what he's already gotten, plus arbitration fees. Clearly the positive EV choice for him is to not expose you even if you refuse to pay a second time. Hence the positive EV choice is to not even bother shaking you down a second time.

And I don't see extortion as analogous to blackmail. One involves a threat of force, the other does not. When you blackmail someone you are simply offering them a service, the service of not telling X about Y. In fact, I would think laws against blackmail would violate the First Ammendment.

[ScottieK]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is WHY is blackmail illegal. Claiming that blackmail contracts are unenforceable because they are illegal and hence they should be illegal because they are unenforceable is circular.

As I said, if you were shaken down a second time, you have a number of options: 1) kill me or kill yourself. Either of these seem extreme, the first leaves you open to liability, the second is stupid. 2) Pay up again. Clearly this is unwise. If you've been shaken down twice, it's likely to continue. 3) Refuse to pay. At this point, if the blackmailer exposes your secret, he does so at his opwn risk, since you can now sue him for breach of contract. Not only will he not get any more money, but he'll lose what he's already gotten, plus arbitration fees. Clearly the positive EV choice for him is to not expose you even if you refuse to pay a second time. Hence the positive EV choice is to not even bother shaking you down a second time.

And I don't see extortion as analogous to blackmail. One involves a threat of force, the other does not. When you blackmail someone you are simply offering them a service, the service of not telling X about Y. In fact, I would think laws against blackmail would violate the First Ammendment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blackmail's illegal because the blackmailer threatens someone with harm (in this case, to their reputation, relationships, or status) and demands money or some other benefit. If the demand isn't met, harm is done. Blackmail is extortion.

All blackmail contracts are unenforceable because blackmailing someone is illegal, not because the contract is simply unenforceable.

If blackmail was legal, and if the situation you describe would happen, then the blackmailer would just make a huge first demand so he wouldn't have to go back a second time.

Making blackmail illegal doesn't violate the First Amendment because the blackmailer is free to shout whatever secret he has out loud to the world. He just won't get paid.

ScottieK

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question is WHY is blackmail illegal. Claiming that blackmail contracts are unenforceable because they are illegal and hence they should be illegal because they are unenforceable is circular.

As I said, if you were shaken down a second time, you have a number of options: 1) kill me or kill yourself. Either of these seem extreme, the first leaves you open to liability, the second is stupid. 2) Pay up again. Clearly this is unwise. If you've been shaken down twice, it's likely to continue. 3) Refuse to pay. At this point, if the blackmailer exposes your secret, he does so at his opwn risk, since you can now sue him for breach of contract. Not only will he not get any more money, but he'll lose what he's already gotten, plus arbitration fees. Clearly the positive EV choice for him is to not expose you even if you refuse to pay a second time. Hence the positive EV choice is to not even bother shaking you down a second time.

And I don't see extortion as analogous to blackmail. One involves a threat of force, the other does not. When you blackmail someone you are simply offering them a service, the service of not telling X about Y. In fact, I would think laws against blackmail would violate the First Ammendment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blackmail's illegal because the blackmailer threatens someone with harm (in this case, to their reputation, relationships, or status) and demands money or some other benefit. If the demand isn't met, harm is done. Blackmail is extortion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you have a right to a fraudulent reputation, relationships, or status? Any reputation, relationship, or status that revelation of a blackmailable act would damage is pretty much by definition fraudulent, i.e. formed on the basis that you would not have done the dirty deed you wish to keep secret.

[ QUOTE ]
All blackmail contracts are unenforceable because blackmailing someone is illegal, not because the contract is simply unenforceable.

If blackmail was legal, and if the situation you describe would happen, then the blackmailer would just make a huge first demand so he wouldn't have to go back a second time.

[/ QUOTE ]

In which case he would likely get nothing. It is clearly in the blackmailer's interest to offer reasonable terms.

[ QUOTE ]
Making blackmail illegal doesn't violate the First Amendment because the blackmailer is free to shout whatever secret he has out loud to the world. He just won't get paid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's pretty clear that interfering with the right to contract violates the First Ammendment, in terms of both freedom of speach and freedom of association.

[ScottieK]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you have a right to a fraudulent reputation, relationships, or status? Any reputation, relationship, or status that revelation of a blackmailable act would damage is pretty much by definition fraudulent, i.e. formed on the basis that you would not have done the dirty deed you wish to keep secret.

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem with that. Doesn't mean you have the right to blackmail someone over it. If whatever evil act really bothers the blackmailer, he should just blow the whistle on whoever he wants to blackmail. If blackmailing is so moral, then why is the blackmailer accepting money to be a co-conspirator with whomever he's blackmailing to keep their collective mouths shut?

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's pretty clear that interfering with the right to contract violates the First Ammendment, in terms of both freedom of speach and freedom of association.

[/ QUOTE ]

People can make a contract over whatever they want, illegal or not. The issue is what third party will enforce the contract in the event of non-compliance. If the contract is to perform an illegal act (e.g., blackmail, murder, buy and sell drugs, etc.) then a court of law cannot and will not enforce the terms of the contract because doing so would promote illegal activity.

Day's almost done...I'm outta here.

ScottieK

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you have a right to a fraudulent reputation, relationships, or status? Any reputation, relationship, or status that revelation of a blackmailable act would damage is pretty much by definition fraudulent, i.e. formed on the basis that you would not have done the dirty deed you wish to keep secret.

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem with that. Doesn't mean you have the right to blackmail someone over it. If whatever evil act really bothers the blackmailer, he should just blow the whistle on whoever he wants to blackmail. If blackmailing is so moral, then why is the blackmailer accepting money to be a co-conspirator with whomever he's blackmailing to keep their collective mouths shut?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's non-responsive and pretty strawy. I didn't claim that blackmail was moral. All I'm saying is that I don't see that it's immoral, that even if it were considered immoral by the majority of people that doesn't justify making it illegal (the government we're told is supposed to protect the minority from the majority), that there is not threat of physical harm, that any "threat" to intangible things such as reputations are only threats to fraudulent reputations, that it has not been logically demonstrated that a society where blackmail is illegal is in any way "better" than one in which it isn't, and that there is a clear incentive in the latter society to avoid blackmailable acts.

Now if you want to say, as others have implied, that blackmail should be illegal because you personally believe it is immoral and that your personal morality should be legislated and forced on everyone, just say that. It's OK. That's the way the majority of people feel about lots of things, blackmail included.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's pretty clear that interfering with the right to contract violates the First Ammendment, in terms of both freedom of speach and freedom of association.

[/ QUOTE ]

People can make a contract over whatever they want, illegal or not. The issue is what third party will enforce the contract in the event of non-compliance. If the contract is to perform an illegal act (e.g., blackmail, murder, buy and sell drugs, etc.) then a court of law cannot and will not enforce the terms of the contract because doing so would promote illegal activity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're going around in circles again. The thread asks, "Why is blackmail illegal?" Any reference to unenforceability of contracts because the subject of the contract is illegal is at best irrelevent.

This has been a fun discussion.

Peace, dude.

[guesswest]

Blackmail is illegal because the majority of people find it immoral or harmful. Thats why ANYTHING is illegal.

Murder is illegal because most people want some protection against being shot, rape is illegal because most people want some protection against being raped, blackmail is illegal because most people want some protection against being blackmailed.

A good government is supposed to protect the minority from the majority, but that protection refers to the exercising of personal freedoms which do not harm others or only harm them in vague and unquantifiable ways thus can't be fairly legislated against. That cannot and should not extend to those who's actions are directly harmful to others and society as a whole, and blackmail is one such action, the damage blackmail can cause is huge and very tangible. And your proposal of caps isn't exactly anarchistic, it's more litiguous than the current blanket illegality we have.

[Borodog]

You keep using that word "harm" in relation to blackmail, when I've already explained that there is no physical harm or threat of physical harm, and the only harm to intangibles would be harm to fraudulent intangibles.

And if you think that making something illegal because the majority find it immoral is OK, then that must lead you to conclude that forcing women to wear burkhas is OK in an Islamic state, since the majority of people find it immoral. That's fine if you believe that. I can't defeat that argument logically because it depends on different axioms (i.e. that it is correct and justifiable to force others to comply with my morality). I just disagree.

And I made no proposal of "caps." I merely said that if a blackmailer broke a contract he could be sued. There's nothing inconsistent or "unanarchist" in my argument.

And this:

[ QUOTE ]
it's more litiguous than the current blanket illegality we have.

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't even make sense. How is a lawsuit more litigous than a criminal case?

[guesswest]

Well setting aside the issue of financial harm, which is very easy to quantify. Harm to someones reputation IS tangible, how is it not? The fact that the reputation is fraudulent is all the more reason for blackmail to be illegal, what incentive is there for anyone to be publicly exposed if you can make a quick buck out of them instead?

On the issue of burkhas. No I'm not ok with that, but that law does not come about as a result of democracy so it's not a reflection of public moral will.

Let's say for the sake of argument it was though - in that case I have a problem with the public moral majority, not with the enaction of the law. In that situation I can do everything in my power to persuade others and effect change, but ultimately have to accept such a law, because that's the compromise involved in living with other people. And there are plenty of laws I feel that way about (eg drug laws).

Protecting the minority is not the same thing as letting the minority rule. In certain areas of law it is possible to compromise proportionally, in other it is not. If a legislative body is faced with a yes or no ruling as they frequently are, then majority rule has to apply. It's not ideal, but it's closer to fair than the alternative which is minority rule.

Edit: Just noticed the last part. I really just meant it's more legislatively complicated than a blanket ban on blackmailing as an activity. As to the volume of litigation that'd clog the system, I have no proof of this since there's been no real life test of your theory, but my hunch is that the courts would spend a lot more time on blackmail cases. In any event, point is only that at best this proposal is no more anarchistic then the current law, since the activity is still illegal at some point.

[Borodog]

So you claim that someone has a "right" to a fraudulent reputation that I'm somehow violating if I threaten to expose them? Sorry dude, that's just too convoluted for me to buy into.

And if the answer to the question of "Why is X illegal?" is "Because government can make it illegal," then the whole conversation isn't very interesting, now is it?

[guesswest]

No, I'm claiming they have a right to protection from extortion. They probably have a right to privacy too, but that's a whole other tangent and I believe there's more than sufficient reason to outlaw blackmail without going there.

Again, it's not the threat to expose them that's illegal, it's demanding money for not doing so that is.

And I don't get what you said about 'why x is illegal' etc - I certainly didn't say that

[Borodog]

It's not extortion; it's blackmail. You're conflating the two.

And the question is not what is illegal, the question is why.

You went through a long explanation of how representative government supposedly works, presumably to impress me with how it's proper for government to make blackmail illegal. Which was never the question. That would have been "Does government have the power to make blackmail illegal?"

and I have no idea what this:

[ QUOTE ]
In any event, point is only that at best this proposal is no more anarchistic then the current law, since the activity is still illegal at some point.

[/ QUOTE ]

means. I don't think I even mentioned anarchy until you did. I don't think it's relevent.

[soon2bepro]

borodog; the correct +EV choice for the blackmailer is not to give out the truth even if he doesn't get paid the first time, since then the other person can sue him for blackmail /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Borodog]

I direct you to the title of the thread.

[guesswest]

Yes you said you were an anarchist (1st post, 2nd page).

The difference between extortion and blackmail is just an administrative one. Like the difference between slander and libel.

That explanation was geared at the question of why it is a good idea for blackmail to be illegal. In summary, because the majority of people want to be protected from blackmail. The idea of government protecting the minority is about this notion of the tyranny of the majority, it is NOT about enabling the minority to inflict personal and direct harm on others.

[Phil153]

One of the basic human rights is the right to liberty. Blackmail is a particularly nasty way of forcing someone to do things against their will. Seems like an obvious thing to outlaw.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes you said you were an anarchist (1st post, 2nd page).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I stand corrected. But you will agree that it wasn't part of my argument.

[ QUOTE ]
The difference between extortion and blackmail is just an administrative one. Like the difference between slander and libel.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just assuming your conclusion. I've stated logical reasons why they are different. Shouldn't your task be to disprove those if you claim they are the same?

[ QUOTE ]
That explanation was geared at the question of why it is a good idea for blackmail to be illegal. In summary, because the majority of people want to be protected from blackmail. The idea of government protecting the minority is about this notion of the tyranny of the majority, it is NOT about enabling the minority to inflict personal and direct harm on others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still not seeing the harm. Like I said, blackmail is an offer to contract for a service, the service of not communicating certain information to a third party. Where's the harm?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the basic human rights is the right to liberty. Blackmail is a particularly nasty way of forcing someone to do things against their will. Seems like an obvious thing to outlaw.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's your problem. There is no force involved.

[guesswest]

It's not a case of assuming my conclusion, anymore than you're assuming yours. It's just a case of opinion as to what constitutes harm. It seems like you only believe in physical harm, and if that's the case then a whole host of things should be legal, like slander, credit card fraud etc. I disagree that the harm involved in blackmail is intangible, the fact that it can't be readily quantified does not make it so.

No people should not and do not have a right to protection of a fraudulent reputation, that's why truth is an absolute defence against libel. They have a right to protection from from coercion.

The only difference between extortion and blackmail is the threat of physical harm (normally) vs the threat of financial and emotional harm. You keep referring to blackmail as being a 'contract', but I think that's plainly ridiculous since it is not a contract which is freely entered into.

On top of which you have all the social consequences that'd most likely ensue if blackmail was legalised. Corruption on a much wider scale, erosion of privacy as more and more people become speculative potential blackmailers. A society which is becoming increasingly isolationist and untrusting anyway, becoming even more so. It'd just be a really sucky society to live in.

It's interesting to me that you even brought up blackmail, because it seems to me that it's a rare example of a crime that violates almost every one of the 'rights' we've chosen to enshrine in law. I can think of few crimes for which the argument to outlaw would be more obvious.

None of this matters anyway, the point is that the vast majority of people want to be protected from blackmail, so that is what is legislated. And few people are compelled to give any legal comfort to blackmailers, since they're commonly viewed as morally bankrupt bottom-feeders.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a case of assuming my conclusion, anymore than you're assuming yours. It's just a case of opinion as to what constitutes harm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, we can agree to disagree then. I think I've stated that several times.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like you only believe in physical harm, and if that's the case then a whole host of things should be legal, like slander, credit card fraud etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fraud is breach of contract, so of course it shouldn't be legal. Slander and libel . . . are a whole kettle of fish that you definitely wouldn't like my position on. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that the harm involved in blackmail is intangible, the fact that it can't be readily quantified does not make it so.

[/ QUOTE ]

in·tan·gi·ble: Incapable of being perceived by the senses.

That's the only way that I meant intangible. A reputation is intangible, so is any "harm" done to a reputation.

[ QUOTE ]
No people should not and do not have a right to protection of a fraudulent reputation, that's why truth is an absolute defence against libel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what that means.

[ QUOTE ]
They have a right to protection from from coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, we're going to have to agree to disagree on what constitutes coercion.

[ QUOTE ]
The only difference between extortion and blackmail is the threat of physical harm (normally) vs the threat of financial and emotional harm. You keep referring to blackmail as being a 'contract', but I think that's plainly ridiculous since it is not a contract which is freely entered into.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's freely entered into. There's no gun to you head. You can either choose to keep your $10,000 or you can choose to keep your fraudulent reputation intact by paying a fee to keep your dirty little secret quiet.

[ QUOTE ]
On top of which you have all the social consequences that'd most likely ensue if blackmail was legalised. Corruption on a much wider scale, erosion of privacy as more and more people become speculative potential blackmailers. A society which is becoming increasingly isolationist and untrusting anyway, becoming even more so. It'd just be a really sucky society to live in.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's all handwaving. As I've pointed out, fear of blackmail would incentivise avoidance of blackmailable behavior. Isn't that a good thing? The implication that just because blackmail is legal everyone will start spending all their time blackmailing each other so all of society will become "less trusting" is unjustified.

[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting to me that you even brought up blackmail, because it seems to me that it's a rare example of a crime that violates almost every one of the 'rights' we've chosen to enshrine in law. I can think of few crimes for which the argument to outlaw would be more obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't bring it up. And I'm sorry, but I just don't see how it violates anyone's rights. Believe me, I'm all about protecting people's lives, liberties, and properties from violent aggression or fraud. I just don't see how blackmail qualifies.

[ QUOTE ]
None of this matters anyway, the point is that the vast majority of people want to be protected from blackmail, so that is what is legislated. And few people are compelled to give any legal comfort to blackmailers, since they're commonly viewed as morally bankrupt bottom-feeders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the question was "Why is blackmail illegal?" "Because everyone wants it that way," is no more compelling an argument against blackmail than it would be for forced burkha wearing.

Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion, but I think it's pretty well played out. There's a fundamental divide over what constitutes force.

Peace. Out.

[SammyKid11]

I haven't read all replies. Disregard that which has already been stated, but I actually felt like responding to this briefly.

Borodog, there are a lot flaws in your reasoning for why blackmail should be legal. I'll run down the list.

1) If you (the potential "blackmailer") find out something about the potential "blackmailee" that said person would be embarassed by if you publicized it, why does learning such information give you a legitimate claim to profit off such knowledge? You are providing no service or good, you are not wagering anything of your own for the chance at profit, you yourself have not been harmed (therefore you're not seeking restitution)...nothing has occured which ought to entitle you to financial or otherwise material reward, simply because you've learned a potentially-embarassing fact about someone else.

2) Not only are you not "due" any reward, but you haven't even justified why it is morally-acceptable for you to profit off someone else's fear of being outed?

3) You make incredibly bad assumptions in your logic. First of all, you assume that someone has done something "bad" and that being blackmailed is just a different form of righteous social punishment -- the above points demonstrate why, even when that's the case, you still have no claim to reward. But what about when a junior partner at an uptight, conservative law firm is gay and someone finds out about it? You're saying that our laws should NOT protect him (or her) from a predatorial blackmailer that seeks to profit from such a person wanting to keep their private lives private in fear for their job? Basically, you're saying it's just fine for such a person to be forced to choose between paying someone to keep quiet and losing their livelihood? Whether you end up agreeing or not, this situation can't ever be allowed to be the legal reality in a civil society that attempts justice. Your "make blackmail legal" sacrifices people in these situations, and in fact encourages people to seek them out and prey on them.

4) You talk about how blackmail is a useful deterrent. This is truly absurd. Clearly, anyone willing to accept a blackmailer's terms (which is everyone involved in your sample set of those for whom blackmail would be useful deterrent) is MORE afraid of the consequences of being found out than they are of paying the terms of blackmail (otherwise they wouldn't pay the blackmail, and they aren't part of the deterrent discussion). Yet they do (or are, or have) the things that could get them blackmailed anyway. If their greater fear (of being found out) is not enough to deter their actions, how on earth could their lesser fear (having to pay someone) be effective in the least?

5) If what a person does OUGHT to be transparent (as you erroneously claim in your assumption that everyone who gets blackmailed has done something wrong), then how does legalizing blackmail help? This provides a DIS-incentive for those who know of wrongdoing to report and help end such wrongdoing. Instead of being legally obligated to report harmful activity, your plan gives them a second option to help conceal harmful activity and LEGALLY profit in the process. Congratulations, you've helped make society even more secretive about social evils.

In short, your plan has people profiting when they have no moral claim to profit, provides incentive to capitalize on other people's fears, destroys what little legal protection there is for people whose (non-harmful) private lives are used against them as a threat to force them to pay money or do (possibly illegal) favors, is a logically-impossible social deterrent, and in fact disincentivizes the whistleblowing of evil.

This plan sucks. Do you see why?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

Illegality isn't the issue (you should know that since I'm an anarchist). The issue is force. Your threat is a threat of force. My "threat" is simply that I'm going to communicate information to a third party. There's a huge difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

exposing the truth is no problem, but exploitation of any kind is unnecessary force as well.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read all replies. Disregard that which has already been stated, but I actually felt like responding to this briefly.

OP, there are a lot flaws in your reasoning for why blackmail should be legal. I'll run down the list.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the OP.

[ QUOTE ]
1) If you (the potential "blackmailer") find out something about the potential "blackmailee" that said person would be embarassed by if you publicized it, why does learning such information give you a legitimate claim to profit off such knowledge? You are providing no service or good, you are not wagering anything of your own for the chance at profit, you yourself have not been harmed (therefore you're not seeking restitution)...nothing has occured which ought to entitle you to financial or otherwise material reward, simply because you've learned a potentially-embarassing fact about someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I walk through the desert and discover a nugget of gold, do I need a "moral right" to pick it up and profit? I don't need a moral right to profit.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Not only are you not "due" any reward, but you haven't even justified why it is morally-acceptable for you to profit off someone else's fear of being outed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why isn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
3) You make incredibly bad assumptions in your logic. First of all, you assume that someone has done something "bad" and that being blackmailed is just a different form of righteous social punishment -- the above points demonstrate why, even when that's the case, you still have no claim to reward. But what about when a junior partner at an uptight, conservative law firm is gay and someone finds out about it? You're saying that our laws should NOT protect him (or her) from a predatorial blackmailer that seeks to profit from such a person wanting to keep their private lives private in fear for their job? Basically, you're saying it's just fine for such a person to be forced to choose between paying someone to keep quiet and losing their livelihood? Whether you end up agreeing or not, this situation can't ever be allowed to be the legal reality in a civil society that attempts justice. Your "make blackmail legal" sacrifices people in these situations, and in fact encourages people to seek them out and prey on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make the incredibly bad assumption in your logic that employers do not have the right to hire and fire employees as they see fit. If Bob doesn't want to have gay people working at his company, what gives you the right to coerce him into acting otherwise? Bob may be a bigotted [censored], but that doesn't give anyone the right to interfere with his right to contract. In fact, if Bob made it known during the hiring process that he would not hire gays and would not tolerate gays working for him and the man concealed his sexual orientation in order to deceive Bob into hiring him, isn't he committing fraud? If it didn't came up during the interview, he still doesn't have any "right to be employed" by Bob, except insofar as his employment contract specifies. If Bob violates the terms of the employment contract, the by all means the former employee should sue for breach of contract.

[ QUOTE ]
4) You talk about how blackmail is a useful deterrent. This is truly absurd. Clearly, anyone willing to accept a blackmailer's terms (which is everyone involved in your sample set of those for whom blackmail would be useful deterrent) is MORE afraid of the consequences of being found out than they are of paying the terms of blackmail (otherwise they wouldn't pay the blackmail, and they aren't part of the deterrent discussion). Yet they do (or are, or have) the things that could get them blackmailed anyway. If their greater fear (of being found out) is not enough to deter their actions, how on earth could their lesser fear (having to pay someone) be effective in the least?

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument doesn't hold water mathematically. If the chance of being "outed" in the process of doing his nefarious deed is x, and the chance that he may be outed later by blackmail is y and the deterent effect in some way depends on the total chance of being outed, well, clearly x+y is greater than x. Isn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
5) If what a person does OUGHT to be transparent (as you erroneously claim in your assumption that everyone who gets blackmailed has done something wrong), then how does legalizing blackmail help? This provides a DIS-incentive for those who know of wrongdoing to report and help end such wrongdoing. Instead of being legally obligated to report harmful activity, your plan gives them a second option to help conceal harmful activity and LEGALLY profit in the process. Congratulations, you've helped make society even more secretive about social evils.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally, an effect I agree with. The incentive you discribe, to try to profit from secret knowledge of bad deeds rather than expose them, seems logical. But it doesn't seem sufficient. Like I said, I simply don't see how blackmail violates any rights.

By the way, being "legally obligated" to inform on people is pretty repugnant, in my opinion. It smacks of police state, doesn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
This plan sucks. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but you make an admirable case. Besides, it's not a plan. It's an abstract theoretical discussion.

I'm even willing to go so far as to say that (like copyright in the other thread) blackmail might be actionable under anarchocapitalism, simply because most people find it "morally repugnant" as was mentioned earlier. And since they'd be forming the juries, the adjudication panels, however suits would be settled, they would rule against blackmailers.

But that still doesn't mean it is logically defensible.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of the basic human rights is the right to liberty. Blackmail is a particularly nasty way of forcing someone to do things against their will. Seems like an obvious thing to outlaw.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's your problem. There is no force involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes there is. It's called coercion, which is a form of force. If someone puts 3 inches from your head (without touching you), and tells you to do something, is he forcing you to do things against your will?

Before you start on some dumb semantics trip, let me give you this scenario. Some crazy guy puts a gun to your head and tells you to blow your mate or he'll shoot you both. You do. Now, does this make you a h0m0 or bisexual? Or were you "forced" to do it?

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I noticed that and edited it a little while before your post.

[ QUOTE ]
If I walk through the desert and discover a nugget of gold, do I need a "moral right" to pick it up and profit? I don't need a moral right to profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Terrible analogy. You're not taking "unclaimed property" here...you're demanding someone else's property in exchange for you doing something that is EITHER WAY immoral:

1) If the information you've found out is actually a social evil, you have a moral (and yes, in most cases a legal) obligation to report such activity, expose it, and help bring an end to whatever social injustice is going on...not to profit from their desire to keep their injustice a secret.

2) If the information you've found out about someone is embarassing regardless of the fact that they've done no wrong, you are merely attempting to scam a decent person out of money (or other things which they do not wish to sacrifice). I see absolutely no reason why charging decent people for their already-acknowledged right to privacy (which, let me guess - you don't believe in even though later you bitch about a police state) ought to be legal. It's similar to the mob charging people for "protection," which really means: I'm gonna charge you a fee in exchange for me NOT hurting you. No reason for either to be legal.

[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

...because scumbaggery need not be incentivized by the law. Acting in decent ways toward your common man is part of why we have legal codes. It's not ALL about property rights and contractual authority (I'll get more into this in a minute). Sometimes, if it's allowable (and often when it's not), people do things to one another for no noble purpose -- but only to take primary financial advantage of one another. Justifying this behavior by making it legally-sanctioned is not in our best interests. If you intentionally cause fear in another human being for the purposes of making money, you are treating that person unlike a human being. To use Kant, you are treating them like a means instead of an end unto themselves. You are USING that person as a tool instead of treating them like a sentient entity. I'm hopeful that you wouldn't purposefully do such a thing, but many people out there do so, regardless of laws making such immoral behavior punishable by law. If we were to legalize such behavior, it would only seek to encourage the treating of human beings as that which is not human. In a society built on human rights, such action is not only counter-productive, it is tantamount to tacit slavery.

[ QUOTE ]
You make the incredibly bad assumption in your logic that employers do not have the right to hire and fire employees as they see fit. If Bob doesn't want to have gay people working at his company, what gives you the right to coerce him into acting otherwise? Bob may be a bigotted [censored], but that doesn't give anyone the right to interfere with his right to contract. In fact, if Bob made it known during the hiring process that he would not hire gays and would not tolerate gays working for him and the man concealed his sexual orientation in order to deceive Bob into hiring him, isn't he committing fraud? If it didn't came up during the interview, he still doesn't have any "right to be employed" by Bob, except insofar as his employment contract specifies. If Bob violates the terms of the employment contract, the by all means the former employee should sue for breach of contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have two responses...

1) Most importantly to the debate at hand...you're arguing the example, not the claim. I used gay people working in a place where homophobia existed as an example of where blackmail could be used unjustly. You've rejected that example on the basis of property rights (and I'll get into that soon). But the larger point that I'll make is -- FINE, I'll change the example. A Southern Baptist is embarassed by the fact that he donated money to a Catholic charity. At his fundamentalist church, he would be an outcast if it were to become known. But he honestly believes in things this particular Catholic charity is working towards. You, as a predator, go to him and demand payment (or maybe sexual favors, who knows -- it's all just a contract, right?) or else you will go to his church, stand up and prove him to be a donator to Catholicism and betrayer of the Protestant agenda, ruin his standing in his most cherished social arena, and cause him to be ostracized from his closest friends.....unless he pays you $xxxx.00. This kind of behavior is morally repugnant, and should not be endorsed by our legal code. Give me one thing that is beneficial about the above behavior by a blackmailing predator. It harms the privacy rights of the donating Baptist, exploits his kindness and social tenure, and preys on his fears to abuse his finances...and in exchange, NOTHING good and everything disgusting has been achieved, all for the perverse and unjustified satisfaction of the predator. For the exploiter, no noble purposes exist...it is simply a cheap and dishonest way to earn a quick buck. Tell me why this should be condoned by our legal system.

2) Your "anarchocapitalism" has taken you to ridiculous lows. Are you kidding me? Employers should be able to hire and fire for any reason? If a female employee refuses to have sex with her boss, that is ample grounds for termination? If a qualified black candidate applies for a job that a company needs to fill, they should be able to refuse hiring of that candidate on the grounds that he's black and the employer is scum? That's justice?

You're failing to acknowledge business' role in a (largely) capitalist society. Business employs over 90% of workers in this country. There is a social component to business that extends beyond the prejudicial whims of each business' owner(s). Failing to employ, or terminating employment of, a person based on arbitrary reasoning is horrible for society...AND the business. In this manner, laws preventing such repugnant behavior actually protect businesses from their owners (or managers) destructive tendencies. If a person is qualified (read: that person will make, or save, your business money by employing them) and you fail to hire them because you're a bigot against their skin color, their gender, their sexual orientation, their religion, etc. -- you have harmed your business by losing out on a profitable business venture (hiring the qualified employee at a competitive wage).

But more importantly, you have harmed society at-large. Businesses (especially large businesses) profit from the social construct in the United States that keep people at liberty. Oppressed people do not find the means to achieve, prosper, and then spend money on the goods and services businesses provide. Surely the Soviet Union and many other examples have taught us that.

Seeing as how the private sector employs such a large percentage of our society, they have a responsibility to do things to at least NOT grind the society they profit from to a halt. Give business the absolute autonomy to hire and fire at their whims and inevitably, the pettiness and bigotry of many businesses' ownership will lead to the outright marginalization of various social groups (homosexuals, minorities, women, etc.)...just as it has time and again throughout American (and world) history. This will not only slow productivity in the business realm, it will also increase crime and anti-social behavior among these groups...which, if ignored by the government, will eventually result in outright revolt. There are reasons why no successful countries are operating under an anarchocapitilast system.

The problem, my friend, is that anarcho-capitalism (and other similar theories which give the market virtual free reign to do whatever each business pleases) seems to make sense on paper. Garner some life experience and a more wholistic worldview and you'll see the flaws in its logic. Unfortunately, typical people are not "generally good." Your worldview ultimately depends on the same assumption of individual reasoning and personal benevolence as that of Communism. However, in a REAL-WORLD society of over 260 millon, constraints are needed to keep the machinery moving productively forward. The fact that the morality of non-discrimination comes into play is only further impetus to pass laws to restrain a social component such as the business sector from having absolute autonomy. That you can't see that just yet is most likely due to either age or dogma...hopefully you'll grow out of it.

But back to the topic at hand...

[ QUOTE ]
This argument doesn't hold water mathematically. If the chance of being "outed" in the process of doing his nefarious deed is x, and the chance that he may be outed later by blackmail is y and the deterent effect in some way depends on the total chance of being outed, well, clearly x+y is greater than x. Isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see the logic in what you're saying...unfortunately, you're ignoring primary versus secondary causes for action. If a person's ultimate fear is death, yet he sells drugs anyway, certainly prison is not working as a deterrent against that person's actions (because every day as a drug dealer they already put themselves at greater risk of death than they do prison). I agree that the "fear" of blackmail might theoretically present another secondary deterrent against immoral action...however, it's foolish to believe that if a primary deterrent (fear of activities, qualities, possessions being known) does not prevent an action, that the addition of a secondary deterrent WOULD prevent same action.

What's more, your analysis doesn't hold water in the real world. Anyone who does (or is, or has) something that they could be embarassed over KNOWS that blackmail is a reality whether it's legal or not. The fact is that laws against blackmail rarely work anyway. Anyone in a blackmailable position, by definition isn't willing to go authorities to report such a crime. So the legalization of blackmail would hardly cause potential wrongdoers to cease with their activities (as they know that blackmail is a possibility whether it's legal or not). What it would do is ENCOURAGE predators to seek out potential blackmail victims, no longer having ANY fear of repercussions considering their actions were perfectly sanctioned by the legal code.

And in fact (as my fifth point states which you do not disagree with), legalized blackmail may in fact ENCOURAGE wrongful activity. Knowing that blackmail (which is preferable to the person not wanting to be found out) is a legal option, those doing actual evil might well be spurned on by the knowledge that, should someone discover them, they are now more likely to merely have to legally pay that person than they are to be outed to society at-large.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, an effect I agree with. The incentive you discribe, to try to profit from secret knowledge of bad deeds rather than expose them, seems logical. But it doesn't seem sufficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, even though you're harming the very cause you profess to be supporting, it's not a sufficient reason to make a socially harmful, privacy-violating, predatory, cheap attempt to profit from others' fear action illegal?

In short, blackmail is immoral in both a teleological and ontological sense, it contains no noble purposes, preys on the fears of innocent people, harms those with legitimate privacies in their lives, and DECREASES the chances for the exposure of greater social evils,...yet it should be legal anyway, simply because you have a pre-conceived notion of property and contract rights that prevents you from wanting common-sense laws that help people and society at-large?

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, being "legally obligated" to inform on people is pretty repugnant, in my opinion. It smacks of police state, doesn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only because you've never been a victim. BTW, I'm a libdem and I feel this way. Of COURSE if you have knowledge of behavior that will, is, or has harmed innocent people (and you don't have special privilege, like attorney/client, priest/parishioner, etc.) and you fail to report it, you should be held liable for your non-action. Certain positive obligations exist whether you like it or not. It doesn't constitute tyranny.

[ QUOTE ]
No, but you make an admirable case. Besides, it's not a plan. It's an abstract theoretical discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

My admirable case has far from been refuted by you.

And when you ADVOCATE the legalization of blackmail...I'm going to look at the effects of your advocacy. I can call the real-world impacts of such advocacy a "plan" and not be factually out of line.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of the basic human rights is the right to liberty. Blackmail is a particularly nasty way of forcing someone to do things against their will. Seems like an obvious thing to outlaw.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's your problem. There is no force involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes there is. It's called coercion, which is a form of force. If someone puts 3 inches from your head (without touching you), and tells you to do something, is he forcing you to do things against your will?

Before you start on some dumb semantics trip, let me give you this scenario. Some crazy guy puts a gun to your head and tells you to blow your mate or he'll shoot you both. You do. Now, does this make you a h0m0 or bisexual? Or were you "forced" to do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the thread next time. There are no guns involved in blackmail, nor any threat of force at all. As I've repeatedly stated blackmail is simply an offer to contract for services, the service of not communicating certain information to a third party. It doesn't violate anyone's rights. You can choose to pay or not to pay.

[Borodog]

SammyKid,

You make a lot of excellent arguments for why blackmail should be considered immoral. I'm going to just concede them all, as I'm not really interested any longer in a point-by-point debate.

Your theory that it is a proper role for government to legislate, regulate, and basically violate individuals' freedom to contract and freedom of association is obviously different from mine, but I think you know that and know that it's basically irresolvable.

Your critiques of anarchocapitalism are poorly thought out, since you clearly have no idea what anarchocapitalism is about. It's a process, not a prescription. It's a process that seems to be arguably better at resolving societal problems and providing services than the coercive governmental process. Read maurile's recent post in the I, Pencil thread if you're interested.

And since it's all a process carried out by human beings depending on their sense of morality, and since you make a damn good case that blackmail can be considered immoral and with no redeeming value, I'm just going to concede that blackmail would probably be "illegal" (or at least actionable) no matter what form of government or lack thereof a (well ordered) society has.

I still stand by my claim that blackmail does not involve force or coercion, nor does it violates anyone's rights.