Why is blackmail illegal?

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ 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.