Comments on: FDR Controversy Part 4: “I would like to ask you to stop posting here”. http://www.memeverse.com/2009/07/10/fdr-controversy-part-4-i-would-like-to-ask-you-to-stop-posting-here/ One mind as an universe of ideas. Sat, 13 Mar 2010 06:41:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: memenode http://www.memeverse.com/2009/07/10/fdr-controversy-part-4-i-would-like-to-ask-you-to-stop-posting-here/comment-page-1/#comment-921 memenode Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:14:21 +0000 http://www.memeverse.com/?p=288#comment-921 Danke HansDietrich. Danke HansDietrich.

]]> By: HansDietrich http://www.memeverse.com/2009/07/10/fdr-controversy-part-4-i-would-like-to-ask-you-to-stop-posting-here/comment-page-1/#comment-920 HansDietrich Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:58:32 +0000 http://www.memeverse.com/?p=288#comment-920 Glückwunsch zum neuen Blog! Glückwunsch zum neuen Blog!

]]> By: Tyncignitty http://www.memeverse.com/2009/07/10/fdr-controversy-part-4-i-would-like-to-ask-you-to-stop-posting-here/comment-page-1/#comment-797 Tyncignitty Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:21:31 +0000 http://www.memeverse.com/?p=288#comment-797 This looks cool so far, what's up people? If there are any real people here looking to network, leave me a post. Oh, and yes I'm a real person LOL. Later, This looks cool so far, what’s up people?
If there are any real people here looking to network, leave me a post.
Oh, and yes I’m a real person LOL.

Later,

]]> By: admin http://www.memeverse.com/2009/07/10/fdr-controversy-part-4-i-would-like-to-ask-you-to-stop-posting-here/comment-page-1/#comment-741 admin Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:13:07 +0000 http://www.memeverse.com/?p=288#comment-741 True, I didn't think it would be coercion. If it would then I don't think it's a legitimate option. That's why I mentioned one possibility being that LM is registered with a court that does in its contract have anti-slander terms or that it has some sort of a contract with other courts to deal with such matters. Since the individual that owns LM would agree to such contracts he would be voluntarily bound by it and thus the whole thing would come down to contract enforcement, nothing more. If there's any force then applied it is in defense of such contracts (which always comes down to defense of property since self ownership is what makes contracts valid, and contracts "acquire" something under some terms). I just wanted to show that suing someone for such thing <em>is</em> conceivable in market anarchy without coercion and that then even threatening legal action isn't necessarily equal to threatening coercion. (That's of course also a good point for all the naysayers about voluntaryism who think anarchy means no law and are afraid that some laws which they apparently like wont be available. The thing is any law can be available if there's enough demand. The difference is that unlike with the state the law is legitimized by direct prior agreement with the law maker which is just the company providing the service to which this "law" applies, not by fiat. Law is just "terms of service" of the company to which you agree to prior to acquiring their services or products.) Regards True, I didn’t think it would be coercion. If it would then I don’t think it’s a legitimate option. That’s why I mentioned one possibility being that LM is registered with a court that does in its contract have anti-slander terms or that it has some sort of a contract with other courts to deal with such matters. Since the individual that owns LM would agree to such contracts he would be voluntarily bound by it and thus the whole thing would come down to contract enforcement, nothing more.

If there’s any force then applied it is in defense of such contracts (which always comes down to defense of property since self ownership is what makes contracts valid, and contracts “acquire” something under some terms).

I just wanted to show that suing someone for such thing is conceivable in market anarchy without coercion and that then even threatening legal action isn’t necessarily equal to threatening coercion.

(That’s of course also a good point for all the naysayers about voluntaryism who think anarchy means no law and are afraid that some laws which they apparently like wont be available. The thing is any law can be available if there’s enough demand. The difference is that unlike with the state the law is legitimized by direct prior agreement with the law maker which is just the company providing the service to which this “law” applies, not by fiat. Law is just “terms of service” of the company to which you agree to prior to acquiring their services or products.)

Regards

]]> By: David J. Heinrich http://www.memeverse.com/2009/07/10/fdr-controversy-part-4-i-would-like-to-ask-you-to-stop-posting-here/comment-page-1/#comment-740 David J. Heinrich Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:07:04 +0000 http://www.memeverse.com/?p=288#comment-740 Regarding your comments on slander, it is worth noting that it is doubtful a libertarian society would coercively prevent slander. To say that someone has a "right" to their reputation, implies they have a right over the minds of others. This is clearly incompatible with libertarianism. Anyone as the right to think badly of anyone else. That said, you can always seeks to correct misinformation; and there may very well be "courts" of arbitration for such things; although the outcomes wouldn't involve any coercion. Regarding your comments on slander, it is worth noting that it is doubtful a libertarian society would coercively prevent slander.

To say that someone has a “right” to their reputation, implies they have a right over the minds of others. This is clearly incompatible with libertarianism. Anyone as the right to think badly of anyone else.

That said, you can always seeks to correct misinformation; and there may very well be “courts” of arbitration for such things; although the outcomes wouldn’t involve any coercion.

]]>