Reputation, or more precisely the alleged ownership of one's reputation, is a first cousin of the monopoly formerly known as intellectual property. In a free market with a libertarian legal framework, no one owns his reputation, which is a function of other peoples' subjective opinion. That's why in a free market there would be no such thing as libel and slander.

Tell that to Indonesia's Supreme Court, which overruled a lower court's dismissal of a libel suit against Time magazine by former President Suharto. In a May 1999 article, Time allegedly libeled Suharto. Time is now on the hook for $106 billion in "damages," as this article says.

"That's why in a free market there would be no such thing as libel and slander."

The kind of free market you posit, where lying about people, companies and products (slander and libel are specifically **false** accusations) is unpunishable is called anarchy. There would also be no laws requiring products to list ingredients, or for manufacturers to make only true claims about their products--since if you can lie about your competitor you, naturally, would have the right to lie about your own product. The world you posit by implication is an awful one.

While the Suharto "libel" suite may be a farce, the answer is rational libel laws and a proper court not the abolition of libel and slander laws in the US.

You have a very naive view of both anarchy and government. In fact there would be less fraud (and lying) under anarchy than exists under government.

There should be no laws requiring companies to list ingredients in their products, or for manufacturers to make only true claims about their wares, etc.

The great Lysander Spooner pointed out that all legislation is an absurdity, a usurpation, and a crime.

Your world of government is an awful one. All governments without exception are criminal organizations, gangs of robbers, regulators, and worse. As Murray N. Rothbard once noted, "the State is the biggest mass murderer, armed robber, enslaver, and parasite in all of human history."

Name one company that has committed anything like the crimes of the Cheney-Bush regime-junta, or of the gubnatorial regimes of any of the fifty states.

No company ever stole anything like what the government of any big country steals on a daily basis, and probably any smaller one.

As for a proper court, that would be one paid for and run privately, not by the State.

"There should be no laws requiring companies to list ingredients in their products, or for manufacturers to make only true claims about their wares, etc."

Wow, just wow. I never new I disagreed so much with you.

"Name one company that has committed anything like the crimes of the Cheney-Bush regime-junta, or of the gubnatorial regimes of any of the fifty states."

It is true that companies rarely get to kill as many people as governments, but they do try. Cigarette companies and chemical companies come to mind. I have a hard time believing corporations would get better with out regulation and kill fewer people. If anything they would step up to the plate.

It is true that companies rarely get to kill as many people as governments, but they do try. Cigarette companies and chemical companies come to mind. I have a hard time believing corporations would get better with out regulation and kill fewer people. If anything they would step up to the plate.

Get to kill? Rarely? Since when do businesses set out to kill their customers or anyone else? And praytell what company has killed more than the one hundred million victims of the state in the last century alone, as documented by R.J. Rummel? Cigarette and chemical companies are not guilty of murder. Both sell legal products. People who choose to smoke do so of their own free will. No one can plead ignorance of the risks of smoking and could not do so at least since the use of the word "coffin nail" to describe cigarettes, which was used before Prof. Wilson dragged the U.S. into WW I. Cigarettes are hardly unique in posing risks to consumers, which they willingly bear. Btw, the government you so dearly love has distributed tons of the cigarettes you so loathe to soldiers in wartime. The government also subsidizes tobaccy farmers and feasts on--one might say is addicted to--the tax revenue their sale produces.

Regulation drives up the cost of products and is paid for by taxes. I have yet to see a regulation which doesn't have a marginal cost greater than its marginal benefit (both costs and benefits are subjective in any event and can't really be measured the way some economists think). Lots of regulations also have unintended consequences and hidden costs that are not forseen at the time they are enacted. And to repeat what I said earier, all legislation is a crime.

It sounds like Bill has paid for the 'full half-hour' argument.

With reputation comes responsibility.

With one's reputation one can cause harm through falsehood. This cannot be blamed as the fault of those who upon hindsight misplaced their trust or confidence.

Of course, the reputation will be adjusted by falsehood, but this doesn't fully compensate for any harm caused.

There remains a natural right to truth - to be protected by the people.

Note that this is not some kind of commercially spawned abomination of a 'property right to reputation'. If the truth 'harms' a person's or merchant's reputation, then there is no reparation due simply because the reputation is affected.

However, the right to truth does not trump the right to privacy.

Nevertheless, and in turn, the right to privacy does not trump the right to life.

Revealing otherwise private evidence that the CEO of a tobacco firm is gay may well be true, but it is the violation of the right to privacy that makes it a crime.

Revealing otherwise private evidence that the CEO deliberately compromised the effectiveness of cigarette filters on an economic basis despite their greater harm may also violate a right to privacy, however it is sanctioned by protecting the right to life.

Life->&Privacy->&Truth->&Liberty

Completely agree that this is a travesty of justice. However, your post incorrectly states that the court awarded $106-Billion (with a "b"). The actual award was $106-million (with an "m").

Still a travesty though.

Crosbie,

There's no such thing as a natural right to truth. A is A is a truth, no natural right about it. Leona Helmsley was the Queen of Mean? Well, that was one tag, but it depends who you talk to. Her multimillionaire dog would disagree, her former employees probably agree.

No one owns his reputation. Opinion is a subjective thing and that is different from an objective fact.

Revealing that someone is gay, regardless of rank or title, is hardly a crime. Sounds more like a fact to me, if it's true. There's also no such thing as a right to privacy, despite Griswold, a 1962 Supreme Court decision that held otherwise.

The market tends to weed out bad products and untrue opinions, although both will never be completely removed.

And thanks for the correction Justin. Billion with a b would be beyond outrageous.

Whoa. Foaming at the mouth nut jobs!

Bill's world seems like it would be even harsher on the poor than our world -- even the poor here have minimal, inadequate access to the courts; the poor in his world would presumably be completely shut out of his envisioned commercial, for-profit court system. Also, without the state, whither infrastructure? Who maintains the roads, ensures basic stuff like transportation and food are cheap enough for even the poor to afford, etc.? It's likely his world has the poor simply starve and die. For shame.

On the other hand, singing paeans to government is silly also. It's a necessary evil; it needs to be viewed with suspicion and mistrust and monitored by the citizens. So do large corporations, which are every bit as powerful and every bit as prone to act with callous disregard.

Unfortunately much of what the government does hurts exactly these poor people. The argument for anarchism is not as easily refuted as one might think. Many very clever people have defended it, in spite of obvious objections that jump to mind.

I think it ultimately is a question of whether you think man is strong enough to lead his own life (in all aspects) or needs at least some amount of protection against himself.

At any rate, if there exists some optimal balance, I think we are too far out and moving towards anarchism would be an improvement.

Minimal, inadequate access to the courts, despite millions poured down the Legal Services rathole? By what standard of minimal and inadequate? And for what? For stuff like the defense of drug entrepreneurs and pot smokers, among other travesties, many of whom were probably so turned off by the prisons and government worshipping institutions called public schools that they figured their best options were on the street.

Here's a newsflash: the poor would be better served for legal services in a free market, and wouldn't be thrown in jail for violating victimless crime laws.

Without the State (contrary to Mises, real liberals do capitalize it) infrastructure would be privately funded. Roads, for example, would be paid for by user fees, e.g. tolls, and perhaps by community dues in small subdivisons, and even the billboard ads that Galbraith hated.

Gabriel Roth wrote a book on private roads, and the Reason Foundation has done a lot of work on this.

Here is information on Mr. Roth here , and on private financing of roads .

The price of food has steadily fallen, just as the labor needed to produce it has, from two-thirds of the American workforce to a tiny fraction of that, no thanks to the subsidies (who pays for them?) that go into the coffers of many agribusinesses, such as Archer Daniels Midland, and not a few Congressmen, and Food Aid performers such as John Mellencamp, as Reason magazine pointed out last year. And don't mess with Willie Nelson's ethanol subsidies, because you don't mess with Texas. Federal farm subsidies make it tough for poor farmers in Africa to compete in world food markets.

Who gets the short end of the rent seeking that gets channeled through the State? Well, the poor get the shortest end.

The poor would be much better off under anarchy that under the welfare and regulatory state. As an anarchist I say government is not a necessary evil; it's just evil.

Here is information on private toll roads , which existed centuries ago.

Let's see. One argument has been that, in effect, "universal access to the legal system is bad because that means bad guys like drug users can get a legal defense". I take it you don't think everyone is entitled to a legal defense whatever they're accused of. Nice guy.

Another frankly doesn't make sense. Guy says a privatized "free-market" court system would give better access to the poor. That's bulls@&! -- a free-market anything gives zero access to the poor pretty much by definition. If you don't have money you can't buy whatever they're selling. That's that.

Then there's that long toll roads bit. Shudder. So much for everyone with the means to afford a car having the means to travel over the entire surface of at least their home continent. So much for long road trips -- they may work out to be even costlier than flying. So travel once again becomes the sole province of the wealthy. Universal toll roads -- i.e. no free-to-use roads -- would indeed turn back the clock to the OP's apparent preferred time period of "centuries ago". Let's try to gauge the practical effects shall we?

Suddenly road travel expenses go through the roof, separately from the issue of fuel prices. First reaction: people far from their workplaces move closer. Bye-bye urban sprawl but hello overcrowded, filthy downtowns again, and just when we were starting to get them cleaned up. The increasing dispersion of the workforce to living in surrounding rural towns would also abruptly reverse itself. Towns near big cities will see their economies implode violently almost instantly.

Then of course people will figure that if using the roads is too expensive, they'll just avoid using the roads but still travel. Expect to see the countryside torn up by a giant upsurge in ATV use -- for commuting and travel rather than recreation. Eventually dirty trashed slashes through our green areas will result, each with a pair of tire ruts running along it. Some will cut across private farmlands, damaging crops, where they expect they can avoid being identified or caught. Farmers will retaliate with surveillance; the cost of running a farm goes up. Cities will end up with ATVs parked in a giant ring around them and people overflowing what public transit they have to offer, or simply walking in huge numbers. Two old industries might see job growth though: buggy whip makers and manure sweepers. Horses might be the ATV of choice for some people, and may even be able to go within city limits without going on the toll roads, using narrow alleys or something that nobody bothers to charge usage fees for.

Of course, as with all privatizations that change a "free", tax-funded infrastructure to one with user fees, this proposal will hurt the poor disproportionately. The fee burden changes from falling primarily on the wealthy, via taxes, to falling evenly on everyone. This is always bad for the poor.

One argument has been that, in effect, "universal access to the legal system is bad because that means bad guys like drug users can get a legal defense". I take it you don't think everyone is entitled to a legal defense whatever they're accused of. Nice guy.

This doesn't follow at all from what I said. In fact, the market provides free or low cost legal services to the poor for a host of issues. Many law firms trumpet their pro bono services as part of their marketing plan, and some even use it to recruit lawyers. Other organizations, including law schools and I think the ACLU, provide free legal counsel and clinics. A criminal defense lawyer who represents murderers told me his minimum fee in a murder case is $25,000. How do poor people come up with that?, I asked him. You'd be surprised, he said, what people do to stump up the money. They go to their family, including extended family; in some instances they get money from their church. Some churches, probably Catholic or evangelical, have social networks where parishoners meet regularly, contribute money to worthy causes, including the legal defense of their fellows in cases such as those my lawyer takes. They do what they have to do to get the money when their life/freedom are on the line.

Can they hire the kind of legal counsel O.J. did? Not likely, but welcome to the real world. They can get a licensed lawyer though, which is what matters. Legal Aid lawyers are also hardly on a par with O.J.'s dream team.

And btw, no one is entitled to anything. If I want something I have to offer my services on the job market, save money, then buy it. I assume you think this is a good thing. So if I want to consume legal services, I had better be prepared to pay (or get them pro bono, in which case my choices are more restricted). Ditto for eating my next meal, buying shoes, etc.

a free-market anything gives zero access to the poor pretty much by definition. If you don't have money you can't buy whatever they're selling. That's that.

You have to be really poor not to afford anything in America. Most people who are in this position are either developmentally disabled, or have made really bad choices, like running with gangs, not saving, etc. I have little sympathy for people who are poor because of their own high time preference, bad decision making, and immaturity. As for the former, families, religious, and other charitable organizations could provide for them.

Travel expenses would not go through the roof on the market. On the contrary, they'd likely fall, just like other costs (except things like the cost of going to college and health care, both of which suffer from government-imposed regulations, which drive up costs and impede innovation).

As it is now, a poor person pays a much higher percentage of his income to drive from A to B than a rich person. A billion dollar a year hedge fund manager in Greenwich pays less of his income to drive to Newark to buy crack then a crack head making $30k who drives from Newark to see the mansions in Greenwich. That wouldn't change by much in a free market for roads, but it would change some in favor of the poor. Free market roads would be much better maintained, and there would be fewer driving accidents, injuries, and fatalities. That by itself would shift the balance toward the poor a bit.

Technology is going to solve the pollution problem, if there is going to be a solution, which assuredly won't come from the EPA and bureaucrats in Washington.

The rich vs. poor divide is a red herring. What matters is how the poor fare on the free market vs. how they do under statism.

Here is how many poor people in Africa do when capitalism--in the form of cell phones--comes to their countries.

The article notes that prepaid customers of Vodacom in Congo pay $0.26 per minute vs. comparable service prices of $0.10 per minute in the U.S. and $0.07 in Germany. So what if they pay than people in the West? What matters is that they are much better off than they were before--and that tomorrow their prices will fall relative to Western prices.

The same is true for roads and other infrastructure. The poor are relatively better off when the market provides them than when they are supplied by the State--even if nominally they pay more than richer people. Adjust for things like mortality and accident statistics and the gap shrinks.

Advances in medicine such as vaccinations benefited the rich, but benefited the poor even more.

These arguments are ridiculous. It's ludicrous to believe that an unregulated capitalist environment will do anything to the poor except sit there and watch them starve. What you're proposing winds back the clock in terms of equal access to basic necessities and services (which, yes, everyone of the human species IS entitled to, by the way) to the bad old wild west days of robber barons and suchlike. Disputes settled at gunpoint (as usual when there's no law west of wherever). What passes for order maintained by private security firms -- i.e., hired thugs. Absent something resembling government, the natural evolution of that market produces protection rackets; security firms will ensure a high rate of violent and property crime to boost the market for their own services. And so forth.

Those arguments are ridiculous. It's ludicrous to believe that an unregulated capitalist environment won't do anything to the poor except sit there and watch them starve. (...) And so forth.