Blackmail in a free society

[Ronin_3000]

How would blackmail work in a free society? As far as I can tell, it doesn't violate the NAP.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

It's another side of ostracism. Violate a moral law or taboo... and try to hide the violation of it... Well, blackmail isn't lightning.  It only happens to those that have done something that either they're not proud of or did something truly evil and (at least morally) criminal. In the former case I think fessing up and not backing down is best while in the latter... Well, shouldn't such people be in jail (or worse if the crime is really evil, like murder)?

The main issue of blackmail is in politics. I think in a free society the potential harm that blackmail could cause would diminish massively. Having a sex tape of the company president can only, at worst, make him play favorite or embezzle money (or something like that) and the consequence is that, in the long run, either his company goes down or he goes down while in politics... entire countries can go down and wars can be waged. 

Like in a totally free society, blackmail just wouldn't be an issue (at least a major one).

[RichardY]

I'd say blackmail is Aggressive, to the point where someone might take their own life or be extorted. But is not violent providing it is not accompanied with a threat of violence, though I could be wrong, don't really know a lot about blackmail.

[Ronin_3000]

If I tell a joke that makes someone kill themselves, have I violated the NAP? I would say no.

Blackmail is when I say I'm going to say a thing if you don't do want I want. If you do what I want, then I promise not to say thing.

[RichardY]

@Ronin_3000

Aristotle defines 3 Types of people in his book Nichomacean Ethics. 1) The Hedonists 2) Those that seek Honor. 3)Those who seek truth, the philosophers.

Is a "joke" blackmail though? I would say it's not. If so how?

Blackmail would be. I'll burn down your store if you don't pay protection money. (Violent) Or I have these picture of you sleeping with a guy, be a shame if they got out to your wife. (Aggressive, though a violation of privacy; unless "they" posted them online, got filmed in the woods or something.)

Blackmail is about Honor and Shame. Not saying or rather NOT saying, cough*. "Publish and be Damned".

[Ronin_3000]

An airing of dirty laundry could take the form of a joke. A comedian revealed Bill Cosby's rapes in one of his performances. My point was that I think speech is not aggression even if it is meant to compel others to commit suicide.

I would not call that threat to burn down your store blackmail.

Regarding the pictures, if you leave your curtains open, and I take pictures of you while I'm on my property, am I violating privacy? I would say no.

[Ronin_3000]

I posted a reply but it got modded. Gosh darn it.

[RichardY]

22 hours ago, Ronin_3000 said:

An airing of dirty laundry could take the form of a joke. A comedian revealed Bill Cosby's rapes in one of his performances. My point was that I think speech is not aggression even if it is meant to compel others to commit suicide.

I would not call that threat to burn down your store blackmail.

Regarding the pictures, if you leave your curtains open, and I take pictures of you while I'm on my property, am I violating privacy? I would say no.

I don't consider someone being raped to be a joke. A caricature(perhaps the wrong word) with all the substance extracted from the form, maybe, maybe..... 

An old guy goes to live in an old people's home, one day the female nurse notices he has an erection, "we can't have that". Gives the guy a blow job. The next day the guy is walking around, falls over, the male orderly gives him one from behind. The old guy tells his son about it. "Well you got to take the rough with the smooth dad." Old guy: "yeah but I get an erection once a month, I fall over nearly everyday". Changing the joke around to be a grandmother instead, isn't as funny or even funny at all.

I think speech can be a form of aggression especially if it is intended for someone to commit suicide. Various form of sophistry: Taking things out of context, concern trolling, passive aggression, instrumental use of speech. If speech couldn't be aggressive why even have down votes on the forum. People may or may not be conscious of their own sophistry.

The key being the, or else,(bribery or social apporval) and the fact society or the authorities may not be there to help. Heard about a car dealer in Peterborough (UK) that would give pikies (Gypo site..)  a car so that, the pikey's wouldn't damage the site causing Hundreds of thousands poinds worth of damage.

I would say you are. Though I think it depends. If I'm exposing myself and you take a picture, it's different then if some hot young woman has left the curtains open carelessly or perhaps not so carelessly. Sound pretty pervy, I mean if you had a telescopic camera and a good vantage point over a city. With image recognition perhaps it could be set to scan in the evening or something. I mean you don't have to intentionally take pictures for your photo album, look, peek, actively search.. Reminds me of the story on the news a while a go of paparrazi using telescopic cameras to take pictures of Kate Middleton topless sunbathing, could be miles out on their own property.

Been a few stories on the news where school pupils have used sexual blackmail and usually a girl has commited suicide. Maybe they don't even have pictures.

Even seemingly relatively benign statements, such as "I would do anything to know X"(Inspired by the movie Prometheus) can be forms of aggression. 

 

[Ronin_3000]

Would you say name-calling is a violation of the NAP?

[RichardY]

I would say generally yes. For example, calling someone a dirty Jew or Christian as a group. In the particular it's not very nice, but made worse by restriction of freedom of association, by the state. Nicknames depends. I think a lot depends on context.

[Ronin_3000]

What would be some appropriate self-defense measures for name-calling? Would you say that hitting someone for name-calling is a too extreme form of self-defense?

[RichardY]

Not to associate with them. Build social connections with others. Like in a self defense course, one thing they say is not to be there. I think with hitting them, it's because you've been goaded into it.

[Ronin_3000]

Would you say that hitting someone who taunts you with name-calling can be moral self-defense or would it be excessive self-defense in violation of the NAP?

[RichardY]

I would say that it is amoral, though I do not subscribe to the NAP or morality, as I believe there are some instances where Agression maybe required, though it is more of a last resort a tactic, end resort is someone ends up injured or dead, when some controlled aggression could have been used, flexing muscle or "showing teeth" to avoid fighting or killing for instance.

Morality I liken to the Nietzschean herd instinct. Although I do subscribe to a silver rule of Ethics, "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."

People may likely ostrasize you, especially the less intelligent and more agreeable ones. If you can repay in kind, but that isn't always feasible tempermentally or practically. 

[Foolmetwice.]

On 5/9/2018 at 12:50 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

It's another side of ostracism. Violate a moral law or taboo... and try to hide the violation of it... Well, blackmail isn't lightning.  It only happens to those that have done something that either they're not proud of or did something truly evil and (at least morally) criminal. In the former case I think fessing up and not backing down is best while in the latter... Well, shouldn't such people be in jail (or worse if the crime is really evil, like murder)?

The main issue of blackmail is in politics. I think in a free society the potential harm that blackmail could cause would diminish massively. Having a sex tape of the company president can only, at worst, make him play favorite or embezzle money (or something like that) and the consequence is that, in the long run, either his company goes down or he goes down while in politics... entire countries can go down and wars can be waged. 

Like in a totally free society, blackmail just wouldn't be an issue (at least a major one).

I think to compel a person who has done a thing that is of a evil nature cannot be achieved by blackmail, this is 2 wrongs and cannot make a right, only many more wrongs. I do think a path to the moral resolution of the alleged crime or the facet of the individual that has become corrupted as the only way to resolve that problem. A path is needed in the common law that can be relied upon to enable the problem to be resolved in a way that all can see works and has no favours or is not subject to any attempt to hide any motives others may seek to hide their own crimes or corruption or involvement. There is a massive pool of broken people in the world right now and they are seeing that bring to light a thing that is difficult to resolve quickly in that can subject them to instant justice and so they become silent forever, and the real crime or problem in the society is never seen and its actors are free to move on and the next victim can be looked for in the sea of those who have been slave to a society that has been happy to seek the easy way to solve a complex equation with some token sacrifice that will keep the real problem of just how smashed everything is just under the surface hidden.  I believe society, civilisation in fact, cannot ignore this any longer, and it would not be pretty or easy to turn the course of the ship that sails towards the waterfall that will break it into pieces. The question is, what are we prepared to lose for the future to be possible?, the future as in the past those who smiled before us and loved and lived and enjoyed a day without the predator who is never without some hunger for another display of suffering?, some face contorted in agony and the world watches while they are reduced to some sideshow in which the viewer thinks they are safe from but simply by looking invite the fact that at some point they may be the star of this show. This opera is subject to that morbid curiosity a lot seek for  some reason but would never admit to it. I think a confessional is a great thing, and those that have committed some awful crime be subject to that punishment that can be seen as not only a deterrent to anyone else thinking it a good idea to deal out their hatred in that way, but also be seen also by anyone who feels the same in their heart and they can see it wont be a great path to take, and then an option is available to  seek a release from any pressures that they see, or maybe cannot see that they are trapped in a tide that is taking them to this place from which their is no easy way back, if at all. I would also remove political ideas from justice mechanisms, if a politically motivated person or group become in charge of any society or indeed a entire civilisation,  justice is then used as a simple tool or weapon, to be used to punish anyone, guilty or innocent. By its very nature of left and right wing politics, seeks always a way to punish anyone who does not agree to submit to their personal corruption and blind hatred of anyone they dislike. Always ignoring the actual reason the law exists in the first place, anti law law.

[Ronin_3000]

If you don't subscribe to the NAP then I don't think this question is for you. By "free society" I mean an an-cap society in which the NAP and property rights are the only rules.

[RichardY]

Yeah well, I consider blackmail to be aggression, I can't see why else someone would do it. I think making a principle of non aggression is denying a part of human nature, when it could be embraced and managed. "Price of everything, Value of nothing".

Though why you want to justify blackmail to yourself, as non aggression?

[Ronin_3000]

I don't think blackmail is aggression because it's just talking and deal-making. Aggression is when you physically attack someone or violate someone's property rights. I think fraud is also a violation of property rights.

Blackmail is basically an agreement to keep a secret in exchange for money. If the blackmailer accepts money and then reveals the secret, then he is committing fraud. Otherwise, I don't see how he is doing anything immoral.

[RichardY]

You still didn't answer my question. I answered yours.

[Ronin_3000]

I disagree with your premise. I don't want to frame blackmail as non-aggression. It's like asking me why I'm gay. I'm not gay, so I can't answer that question.

If you're asking why I'm asking about blackmail in the first place, it's because blackmail is an issue that seems to be mitigated by law in a state, but I don't see how blackmail could be stopped in an an-cap society because it doesn't violate the NAP.

[RichardY]

Ok, you say. "I don't want to frame blackmail as non aggression.", then say "it doesn't violate the NAP."  Which leaves the 3rd option of "I know nothing Mr Fawlty, I am from Barcelona." (a plea of innocence). I would say you can have "leverage" in a deal, which Trump talks a lot about in his Book "Art of the Deal." But leverage and keeping secrets is not the same as blackmail. It would be like saying I have no idea what evil is, therefore I can't do evil. 

Blackmail is not fundamentally about money. Blackmail is more about domination and aggression. You may say, well I and everyone else has absolute freewill and therefore blackmail is impossible, it's not like I'm being physically moved against my will like a rag doll. Though I would say freewill is a potentiality and not everyone has 100% consciousness(not even Stefan), especially younger and older people. Those who pursue the truth above all(family, friends, money, career and therefore a potential living, own children)  or those who are just outright hedonists are not subject to blackmail.

Against a 100% conscious person, aggression would be impossible. "Forgive them Lord for they know, not what they do." Is a wasp or ant being aggressive when it stings? To the other insects, maybe(chemical signals), to the person being stung it's just an insect and any aggression is a stylization of language.  

Blackmail mitgated by laws in the state? I would say the state increases the potential for blackmail. "As the only thing the state does is remove freedom of choice". -Peter Schiff.

 

[Ronin_3000]

You lost me. Maybe I'm the dummy here, but nothing of what you said made any sense to me. Were you smoking some green marijuana when you made that post?

[RichardY]

13 minutes ago, Ronin_3000 said:

You lost me. Maybe I'm the dummy here, but nothing of what you said made any sense to me. Were you smoking some green marijuana when you made that post?

Looks like it.

[Ronin_3000]

I just got downboated 5 times. Hmm...wonder who it could be?

[smarterthanone]

I see you have it mixed up, you are going back and forth talking about two different things. There is something called BLACKMAIL, which is when you know a secret about someone and you threaten to reveal it. And there is something called EXTORTION which is when you make a threat of violence to coerce someone. Blackmail does not violate the NAP, extortion does violate the NAP.

Also, I wouldn't assume blackmail has violated anyone, the simplest blackmail is something that you clearly did not violate someone. ie You work in an office and your boss send you an email by mistake because your name is [email protected] and he sends an email on company time to [email protected] about his affair. Now you can go to HR, his wife, or just talk about it to anyone, you aren't necessarily obligated or not obligated to do anything with the information. (Is it right to tell his wife to protect her from STDs and other issues, is it right to be loyal to your boss and not say, is it right to go to HR because they ought to be aware, there is no clear answer)

[RichardY]

What the fuck. I can't believe that blackmail does not violate the NAP. Children and adults commit suicide over such things. People get buried alive in "honor killings" in Turkey. (not that I care, but as an example)

1) Either it doesn't, in which case the NAP is crap & clinging to it is cowardly.
2) It does violate the NAP, in which case I think you are both using confirmation bias to justify blackmail. In the case of @smarterthanone working in the Porn industry. And in the case of @Ronin_3000, playing dumb as if blackmail is not evil and calling me a pothead.

 

10 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Also, I wouldn't assume blackmail has violated anyone, the simplest blackmail is something that you clearly did not violate someone. ie You work in an office and your boss send you an email by mistake because your name is [email protected] and he sends an email on company time to [email protected] about his affair. Now you can go to HR, his wife, or just talk about it to anyone, you aren't necessarily obligated or not obligated to do anything with the information. (Is it right to tell his wife to protect her from STDs and other issues, is it right to be loyal to your boss and not say, is it right to go to HR because they ought to be aware, there is no clear answer)

Why do people call it blackmail instead of dealmaking or leverage if blackmail isn't evil. Someone is infected with an STD and you say nothing, and that isn't passive aggression. At the least you have violated that person's trust and what else is there. Might as well abandon the NAP and gobble people up as base appeptite.

No one else think that blackmail violates the NAP or at the least is evil. Who else is Holier than thou? Not that I don't necessarily want to be beyond good and evil.

--------------------------------------------------------------

(I like the wider context.)

Isaiah 65 

I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.
2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;
3 A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;
4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels
5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.
6 Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom,
7 Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the Lord, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.

 

 

[Ronin_3000]

8 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

I see you have it mixed up, you are going back and forth talking about two different things. There is something called BLACKMAIL, which is when you know a secret about someone and you threaten to reveal it. And there is something called EXTORTION which is when you make a threat of violence to coerce someone. Blackmail does not violate the NAP, extortion does violate the NAP. 

Also, I wouldn't assume blackmail has violated anyone, the simplest blackmail is something that you clearly did not violate someone. ie You work in an office and your boss send you an email by mistake because your name is [email protected] and he sends an email on company time to [email protected] about his affair. Now you can go to HR, his wife, or just talk about it to anyone, you aren't necessarily obligated or not obligated to do anything with the information. (Is it right to tell his wife to protect her from STDs and other issues, is it right to be loyal to your boss and not say, is it right to go to HR because they ought to be aware, there is no clear answer) 

How'd you get all that negative rep? This post seems intelligent to me.

[smarterthanone]

10 minutes ago, Ronin_3000 said:

How'd you get all that negative rep? This post seems intelligent to me.

Well I believe everything should be talked about and examined. So its from two topics. One I thought people who were ancap and ancap leaning might have a propensity for certain personality disorders while people who are socialist/communist type people may over represent others. I can only ask one side of it on this forum and people just assumed I was talking bad about people on FDR, no matter how scientific I was trying to be, many got offended. Secondly, the other I endorsed minor and consensual intimate violence as a method to dealing with lets just say difficult women who would otherwise make great wives (spanking). I have done it in my personal life and it works. You may agree or not with it all you want but I have lots of experience with it and it does work very well and nobody has ever been upset with me for doing it... except some people on FDR obviously.

[Ronin_3000]

Can you explain the spanking thing? Is it like spanking a woman during sex without her explicit consent?

[smarterthanone]

Will PM. Lets talk about the topic of blackmail still. I would think black mail would exist in a free society. But once it becomes common place, people will start to be more secretive about things they want secret and some taboos may disappear if its just easier to be outed than to keep a secret and have black mail risk.

[smarterthanone]

On 5/15/2018 at 2:19 PM, RichardY said:

What the fuck. I can't believe that blackmail does not violate the NAP.

Why? It isn't self explanatory.

 

On 5/15/2018 at 2:19 PM, RichardY said:

Children and adults commit suicide over such things.

Logical fallacy: Appeal to emotion. I feel bad. Does not change anything. If you don't want to be blackmailed simply do not do something you would kill yourself over and you will never kill yourself. Easy.

 

On 5/15/2018 at 2:19 PM, RichardY said:

People get buried alive in "honor killings" in Turkey. (not that I care, but as an example)

This is not blackmail, it is extortion. ie if you have sex outside of marriage I will kill you.

 

On 5/15/2018 at 2:19 PM, RichardY said:

*Was in response to my example*

Why do people call it blackmail instead of dealmaking or leverage if blackmail isn't evil. Someone is infected with an STD and you say nothing, and that isn't passive aggression. At the least you have violated that person's trust and what else is there. Might as well abandon the NAP and gobble people up as base appeptite.

So how would sharing or not sharing the bosses email be moral or not moral? Its simply in front of your face. You have no obligation to anyone involved or not involved.

 

 

 

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

3 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Why? It isn't self explanatory.

Logical fallacy: Appeal to emotion. I feel bad. Does not change anything. If you don't want to be blackmailed simply do not do something you would kill yourself over and you will never kill yourself. Easy.

This is not blackmail, it is extortion. ie if you have sex outside of marriage I will kill you.

So how would sharing or not sharing the bosses email be moral or not moral? Its simply in front of your face. You have no obligation to anyone involved or not involved.

Very sound points, I must say. I can't speak for everyone with dirt on them but since I don't have anything I could be blackmailed for (well; I could be made embarrassed by some things but I'd rather fess up or whatever because they aren't worth paying someone off for or whatever) I think it's a minor issue for anyone that isn't a moral-law breaker. 

And I think differentiating blackmail from extortion was important; after all the former usually involves letting out an inconvenient truth while the latter is usually a death threat.

The given example is fairly gray; if I don't know the boss's wife personally, I'd be more obligated to be loyal to him. However I'd mentally bookmark it because it tells me he can't be trusted as much as, at least, a guy who isn't cheating on his wife. After all; if he can cheat on his wife, why not his employee (so to speak)?

[RichardY]

14 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Why? It isn't self explanatory.

Logical fallacy: Appeal to emotion. I feel bad. Does not change anything. If you don't want to be blackmailed simply do not do something you would kill yourself over and you will never kill yourself. Easy.

How can you apply logic to aggression? (Base mechanics). If it's a life boat scenario, just kill the other person.  But what if that other person is a child? What if using aggression maybe a way of preventing a catastrophe. I'm not saying that blackmail is a necessarily a particular effective form of aggression, it won't work against purely a philosopher, but what person is purely a philosopher?

Maybe the blackmail is all bluff and has no substance to it what so ever. Maybe the person is a criminal seeking a bribe. The blackmail being implicit, rather than explicit. Or it could be the explicit withold of certain rewards. Or it might be just say nice things about us. Like at the end of the movie "Catch 22".
 

 

14 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

So how would sharing or not sharing the bosses email be moral or not moral? Its simply in front of your face. You have no obligation to anyone involved or not involved.

I wouldn't see it as a moral issue( or even morality). More the case of "what judgement you meet it shall be meeted you." Though still a social animal. Say something, don't say something. Though their are consequences either way. Moral Obligation, though if you don't generally like people or even at all, I'm not sure how morality would apply. Not that you wouldn't necessarily like the stuff they produce, or them ground up into pate. (Problem still am a person, the pate thought came from the film "War of the Roses", not particularly practical, plus emotional attachment) .On an individual level it might be different, I genuinely think the best nationalites are Anglo-Sphere ones. USA > New Zealand> Canada > Australia > Ireland > The UK.
 

I hate using google search because I don't agree with many definitions, but unless you have better.

Noun 1. the action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them.

 

Verb. force (someone) to do something by using threats or manipulating their feelings.

Blackmail, ethymology Black Speech.

 

The point is compromising. So unless you are Diogenes and have no shame or are purely a philospher, perhaps divine. I consider blackmail aggression. It might not involving anything particularly substantial, perhaps symbolic (Kiss the ring of power). Not that I wouldn't necessarily use aggression, but seems a poor tactic against a Diogenes or a Philosopher.
 

[smarterthanone]

On 5/17/2018 at 11:28 AM, RichardY said:

How can you apply logic to aggression?

Here are four scenarios... which do you consider aggression?

1. I see Jim, who is married, kiss some woman at a bar, in public. It was Tuesday night and quiet, so nobody really saw. I tell Jim to give me $50 to pay my bar tab or else I will tell his wife, who will cause trouble and/or leave him.

2. I knock on Mark's door, he answers it wearing a red shirt and jeans. I tell Mark, if you don't give me $50, I will tell everyone you wore a red shirt and jeans.

3. Same as situation #1 except HOWEVER they happen to be in an open relationship but I do not know that.

4. Same as situation #1 except I just don't ask for the money. I simply tell his wife for the purpose of seeing him get in trouble. (Not because I think she deserves to know).

[smarterthanone]

On 5/17/2018 at 1:49 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Very sound points, I must say. I can't speak for everyone with dirt on them but since I don't have anything I could be blackmailed for (well; I could be made embarrassed by some things but I'd rather fess up or whatever because they aren't worth paying someone off for or whatever) I think it's a minor issue for anyone that isn't a moral-law breaker. 

 And I think differentiating blackmail from extortion was important; after all the former usually involves letting out an inconvenient truth while the latter is usually a death threat.

The given example is fairly gray; if I don't know the boss's wife personally, I'd be more obligated to be loyal to him. However I'd mentally bookmark it because it tells me he can't be trusted as much as, at least, a guy who isn't cheating on his wife. After all; if he can cheat on his wife, why not his employee (so to speak)?

See you have taken precautions to protect yourself from blackmail. Even if its immoral/violation of NAP, its still ones responsibility to protect oneself. Just like you ought to be able to walk in the ghetto crime area with a bag of cash and no protection. But if you got robbed, nobody is really going to pity you, as a reasonable person would know better. So I think overall, 1. It isnt a violation of the NAP but 2. Even if it is, it would be such a minor transgression that the fault lies with the person being blackmailed.

If you want to step out on your wife, any consequences are really your fault, not the person who simply is considering telling the TRUTH.