Blackmail in a free society

[RichardY]

How can you apply logic to Aggression.

On 5/18/2018 at 11:22 PM, smarterthanone said:

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).

 

There is an implied change in your counter question, from my initial question "How can you apply logic to Aggression." As a subject applying logic to their own aggression, with imperfect information. Which I would say they can't. The best they can do, is rationalise with statistics. Maybe they could apply a commandment (thou shalt not covet), in order to do that there has to be an external observer i.e God or reflective self. But, what if coveting is weakness, perhaps one should not covet purely out of that. I used the word commandment as was trying to avoid using the word morality.

To

"How can I apply logic to Aggression" as an impartial informed observer. With Perfect Information, but incomplete knowledge.

---

All of them are potentially aggression to an outside observer.

1. Extorting money.
2. Acting like a lunatic.Intimidation potentially.
3. Extorting money.
4. Trying to break up a marriage.

What I'm getting at is applying logic to the motivation behind the aggression. Whether to be Moral no matter what "I have the High ground", operate along some form of statistics, "What is good for mans life is good for man.", game theory, or just go nuts; maybe look for an outlet for aggression "what makes the grass grow, blood blood blood." 

 

 

 

[Kohlrak]

Just my two cents, but:

1. The person who is being blackmailed is hiding truth, usually of their own actions or those of a relative or something. Not only for yourself, but for the principle of truth (which is necessary in a free society), you should not be giving someone something to extort you with. If someone is threatening you with a lie, prepare for the lie, as they're giving you a warning, and there's a good chance they'll throw the lie, anyway.

2. The person committing the extortion obviously isn't worried about truth, or they'd just say the truth without the threats. This is indicative of dishonesty on their part, thus it would be wise not to trust them on not releasing the blackmail, anyway, since they could be lying about their willingness not to tell the truth, if they're able to avoid telling the truth to begin with.

 

While i'm sure there are situations that we may feel are unfair, such as "my father was a member of organization X," and this may somehow put you in a spot with organization Y, if it's truly unfair, arguments should be made against organization Y or organization Y's arguments in regards to fairness.

[smarterthanone]

16 hours ago, RichardY said:

How can you apply logic to Aggression.

 

There is an implied change in your counter question, from my initial question "How can you apply logic to Aggression." As a subject applying logic to their own aggression, with imperfect information. Which I would say they can't. The best they can do, is rationalise with statistics. Maybe they could apply a commandment (thou shalt not covet), in order to do that there has to be an external observer i.e God or reflective self. But, what if coveting is weakness, perhaps one should not covet purely out of that. I used the word commandment as was trying to avoid using the word morality.

 To

"How can I apply logic to Aggression" as an impartial informed observer. With Perfect Information, but incomplete knowledge.

 ---

 All of them are potentially aggression to an outside observer.

1. Extorting money.
2. Acting like a lunatic.Intimidation potentially.
 3. Extorting money.
4. Trying to break up a marriage.

What I'm getting at is applying logic to the motivation behind the aggression. Whether to be Moral no matter what "I have the High ground", operate along some form of statistics, "What is good for mans life is good for man.", game theory, or just go nuts; maybe look for an outlet for aggression "what makes the grass grow, blood blood blood." 

 

 

 

You are making them all aggression in your mind. See my post above about the definition of extortion. Extortion means specifically when you threaten violence. Like "Pay me or I will kill you.". None of my examples had any threat to violence and you still view them as extortion. I think you are just mixed up on the concepts and no useful discussion can be had until we accept the terms we are going to use. If you don't like the definition of extortion, that's fine, argue what you think it should be in the terms of our discussion and why.

You also think asking him to pay to not say you saw him in a shirt and jeans is being a lunatic and intimidation. I fear you have been extorted before and are just assuming some 6'5" 300lb muscle guy with a gun and 2 other guys behind him is the one making the requested and giving you a little wink like im about to beat you. Nope, you are making your own embellishments. Pretend your 8 year old daughter is making the request. Do you find her intimidating? I hope not. The point was, most people would be like, "I dont care, tell whoever you want i wear a shirt and jeans, big whoop".

[RichardY]

2 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

You are making them all aggression in your mind. See my post above about the definition of extortion. Extortion means specifically when you threaten violence. Like "Pay me or I will kill you.". None of my examples had any threat to violence and you still view them as extortion. I think you are just mixed up on the concepts and no useful discussion can be had until we accept the terms we are going to use. If you don't like the definition of extortion, that's fine, argue what you think it should be in the terms of our discussion and why.

You also think asking him to pay to not say you saw him in a shirt and jeans is being a lunatic and intimidation. I fear you have been extorted before and are just assuming some 6'5" 300lb muscle guy with a gun and 2 other guys behind him is the one making the requested and giving you a little wink like im about to beat you. Nope, you are making your own embellishments. Pretend your 8 year old daughter is making the request. Do you find her intimidating? I hope not. The point was, most people would be like, "I dont care, tell whoever you want i wear a shirt and jeans, big whoop".

From Google Extortion; the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

The onus should be on you to prove why the threat has to be violent, given standard definitions. The threat could be of a psychological nature, such as extorting old people for money, for home or vehicle maintenance. 

As I said, incomplete knowledge.

[smarterthanone]

36 minutes ago, RichardY said:

From Google Extortion; the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

The onus should be on you to prove why the threat has to be violent, given standard definitions. The threat could be of a psychological nature, such as extorting old people for money, for home or vehicle maintenance. 

 As I said, incomplete knowledge.

I would highly recommend not using Googles definition. They also define fascism as right wing.

So you are defining blackmail and extortion to be the same thing basically? There are obviously two distinct forms of this kind of thing. One where "I will kill you if you don't pay me" vs "I know you cheat on your wife, ill tell her if you don't pay me". So if you define them as the same thing, then we have no terms to talk about each type now do we? This is why I highly suggest we use the american legal definitions. Extortion being when threat of force is used and blackmail is only threat of releasing information.

And I would say the onus is on you on why we ought to use a cripplingly basic definition from google instead of the accepted and nuanced legal definitions.

[ofd]

Quote

The person who is being blackmailed is hiding truth, usually of their own actions or those of a relative or something. Not only for yourself, but for the principle of truth (which is necessary in a free society)

This is false. There are a lot of cases where you legitimately and morally don't want the truth to come out. Say you intend to buy a lot of shares. Then you have a legitimate interest not to let that be known.
In a truly free ancap society you can purchase insurance against blackmail. How the private company deals with the blackmailer is their problem.

[RichardY]

1 hour ago, smarterthanone said:

I would highly recommend not using Googles definition. They also define fascism as right wing.

So you are defining blackmail and extortion to be the same thing basically? There are obviously two distinct forms of this kind of thing. One where "I will kill you if you don't pay me" vs "I know you cheat on your wife, ill tell her if you don't pay me". So if you define them as the same thing, then we have no terms to talk about each type now do we? This is why I highly suggest we use the american legal definitions. Extortion being when threat of force is used and blackmail is only threat of releasing information.

And I would say the onus is on you on why we ought to use a cripplingly basic definition from google instead of the accepted and nuanced legal definitions.

The basic premise is that YOU asserted that blackmail did not violate the NAP. I said that it did. But  if you want to use a legal definition from dictionary.law.com 

Blackmail 

n. the crime of threatening to reveal embarrassing, disgraceful or damaging facts (or rumors) about a person to the public, family, spouse or associates unless paid off to not carry out the threat. It is one form of extortion (which may include other threats such as physical harm or damage to property).

Extortion

n. obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right (such as pretending to be an IRS agent). It is a felony in all states, except that a direct threat to harm the victim is usually treated as the crime of robbery. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing, damaging information to family, friends or the public.

On 5/15/2018 at 2:36 PM, 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)

My point is, that as a threat is aggression, blackmail violates the NAP. The payoff for blackmail does not have to be renumerative(as in pure extortion), it can be psychological.

 

Oxford. Aggression; 1Feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour; readiness to attack or confront.

Cambridge. Aggression; spoken or physical behaviour that is threatening or involves harm to someone or something

Websters.  Aggression; : a forceful action or procedure (such as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

[smarterthanone]

2 hours ago, RichardY said:

The basic premise is that YOU asserted that blackmail did not violate the NAP. I said that it did. But  if you want to use a legal definition from dictionary.law.com 

Blackmail 

n. the crime of threatening to reveal embarrassing, disgraceful or damaging facts (or rumors) about a person to the public, family, spouse or associates unless paid off to not carry out the threat. It is one form of extortion (which may include other threats such as physical harm or damage to property).

Extortion

n. obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right (such as pretending to be an IRS agent). It is a felony in all states, except that a direct threat to harm the victim is usually treated as the crime of robbery. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing, damaging information to family, friends or the public.

My point is, that as a threat is aggression, blackmail violates the NAP. The payoff for blackmail does not have to be renumerative(as in pure extortion), it can be psychological.

 

Oxford. Aggression; 1Feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour; readiness to attack or confront.

Cambridge. Aggression; spoken or physical behaviour that is threatening or involves harm to someone or something

Websters.  Aggression; : a forceful action or procedure (such as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

I know what you are saying with those definitions. Unfortunately it is a grey area. Look up 20 definitions in 20 places and you will see different ones on each. If you read enough, you will see, many draw the distinction between information vs violence. But either way.

You equate a threat with violence. Or a threat with aggression. Such that is a violation of the NAP. Unfortunately the word aggression also has two meanings here and threat isn't necessarily a violation of the NAP. Would you say playing football aggressively is a violation of the NAP? I mean we are assuming everyone has agreed to the rules and is playing fairly. What about building your business aggressively instead of growing slower and safer? Is that a violation of the NAP? No.

Threatening someone may or may not be aggressive and being aggressive may or may not be violation of NAP.

What if you come to my business and are rude. What if I THREATEN to ban you from service? That is not a violation of the NAP. It is clearly a threat, and I could be aggressive about it. Aggressively threaten ban at a minor infraction of my business rules.

The whole point I am saying is to threaten someone with violence is clearly against the NAP. No doubt about it. So no need to even talk about that any more. We agree there. But the problem I am having is that adding money to an acceptable act can never make it a violation of NAP.

Is it NAP moral to mow your lawn? Yes. For money? Yes.

Is it NAP moral to have sex? Yes. For money? Yes.

Is it NAP moral to tell the truth, that you saw someones husband making out with someone else at a bar? Yes. For money? Yes.

Is it NAP moral to not tell that you saw someones husband making out with someone else at the bar? Yes. For money? Yes.

 

If you are saying that is not ok, realize you are making an exception to a big big big aspect of the NAP in general. Why is adding money to a moral act make it immoral under NAP? Money is not a moral factor under the NAP.

People feel a bit icky about money though, its your intuition. Just like with the example about sex. As much as it is NAP moral, people intuitively still do not like to say prostitution is moral under NAP. Or they do but they don't like it.

I think big picture, it means probably either:

1. We were raised with cultural norms that are not moral. (ie raised with such an aversion to blackmail that no matter how well it fits the framework, it always triggers your intuition as not moral because of money)

2. NAP is not a complete understanding of morals. (ie. NAP is pretty good but it is not 100% right)

[RichardY]

The presentation of facts has a certain incontestable truth, because the subjective factor is excluded and the facts speak for themselves. Similarly, the representing of the unknowable has also an immediate, subjective, and convincing power, because it is demonstrable from its own existence. The former says ' Est, ergo est ' (' It is ; therefore it is ') ; while the latter says ' Cogito, ergo cogito ' (' I think ; therefore I think '). In the last analysis, introverted thinking arrives at the evidence of its own subjective being, while extraverted thinking is driven to the evidence of its complete identity with the objective fact For, while the extravert really denies himself in his complete dispersion among 
objects, the introvert, by ridding himself of each and every content, has to content himself with his mere existence.

Carl G Jung - Psychological Types

Might be because our modes of thinking or approach are different. A = A, Est ergo est (It is; therefore it is) Aristotlian law of identity. Or a more subjective line of thinking in my case Cogito, ergo Cogito (I think; therefore I think.) A then B. "Nietzschean" form of thinking.

------------------
@smarterthanone

Yes of course if someone engages in an activity such as football or boxing. It would be wrong to consider it aggression per se. I mean if Mike Tyson pummeled a novice in an exhibition match ala Rocky 4, I would consider that aggression. Even if the violence would be suspect.....

Which is why I have a problem with the Non Aggression Principle. If it were non violence I think most people would agree. But using a purely violent interpretation of the word, is bad form I think. Not that my form is necessarily good, but still.

I'm interested in the primitive implications of aggression. The primordial aspects that are taken as self evident, rather than proved in a court of law, but speak to motivation.

1) Yes not just cultural, but psychological as well.

2) So instead of morals an equivalent of a kantian "Goodwill" could be the case. Which would be amorality. Although speculating in general. I mean there's the whole self ownership thing in UPB. Taxation is theft etc. I think UPB is superior to the NAP. Though interested in hearing other ideas. If morality has psychological benefits I think it has appeal, but doing it purely for greed. So maybe can't be moral, perhaps purely a deferal of gratifcation thing. So maybe below a certain IQ range a person can't be moral, maybe above is also the case. Though to be beyond Good and Evil according to Jung is evidence of a sick mind. I still considers things to be evil.

[smarterthanone]

On 5/22/2018 at 9:35 AM, RichardY said:

Yes of course if someone engages in an activity such as football or boxing. It would be wrong to consider it aggression per se. I mean if Mike Tyson pummeled a novice in an exhibition match ala Rocky 4, I would consider that aggression. Even if the violence would be suspect.....

Here is the problem though. If I sign a contract stating I am willing to take the risks of boxing Mike Tyson and agreeing to the rules of boxing, then what gives you the right to judge ON MY BEHALF or intervene or punish Mike Tyson? If him beating me severely in this instance you deem to be aggression and immoral such that something ought to be done actively interferes with the whole point of the NAP. It the same principles of collectivism. That you an unrelated party are going to interfere with a negotiated agreement on their behalf because they are too stupid to do so on their own... because "you know better." I don't see any way you could justify stopping or afterwards punishing Mike Tyson in this instance without completely disregarding NAP.

 

On 5/22/2018 at 9:35 AM, RichardY said:

Which is why I have a problem with the Non Aggression Principle. If it were non violence I think most people would agree. But using a purely violent interpretation of the word, is bad form I think. Not that my form is necessarily good, but still.

Why would you consider it bad form? I think it is its most traditional and viewed form of NAP. Aggression is defined, often in terms of NAP, as the initiation of violence. (Some will say initiation of force, however they then say force is that situation is a synonym for violence. If they did not, then simply paying someone to build your house would be using economic force and a violation of NAP, which I assume we can agree is obviously not what anyone means here.)

If you think it covers more than the initiation of violence, then what exactly do you mean? I think you will have a very difficult time to determine a usable definition as you have changed something from an rule that requires no interpretation to one that requires subjective opinion to interpret. That I think is a  big problem because the draw of the NAP is it is very simple and has no exceptions and could apply anywhere at any time. If you add subjective qualities to it, you can't simply just apply it in every circumstance any more.

 

On 5/22/2018 at 9:35 AM, RichardY said:

1) Yes not just cultural, but psychological as well.

I doubt its psychological because not everyone has hang ups over money. See all prostitutes, drug dealers, blackmailers, etc and those that don't inherently think those things are immoral. Its simply a cultural learning, which is very strong. Its the whole, "its cool to make some art but if you do it for money you are a big corp man and its not cool anymore" kind of hippy vibe thing, "don't be a sellout, man". That is very ingrained into the culture. You are a wonderful person to build a house for someone for free but you are a terrible person if you build lots of houses for money because you destroy the environment and are a capitalist for profit person... meanwhile you are lowering costs of housings across a whole market for thousands of people and providing jobs for 50 others.

 

On 5/22/2018 at 9:35 AM, RichardY said:

2) So instead of morals an equivalent of a kantian "Goodwill" could be the case. Which would be amorality. Although speculating in general. I mean there's the whole self ownership thing in UPB. Taxation is theft etc. I think UPB is superior to the NAP. Though interested in hearing other ideas. If morality has psychological benefits I think it has appeal, but doing it purely for greed. So maybe can't be moral, perhaps purely a deferal of gratifcation thing. So maybe below a certain IQ range a person can't be moral, maybe above is also the case. Though to be beyond Good and Evil according to Jung is evidence of a sick mind. I still considers things to be evil.

Greed is the maximization of value. If nobody was greedy, we wouldn't be able to produce nearly as much total economic value. Capitalism as a means of providing increasing economic growth and advancement only functions because most people are mostly greedy. I could make widgets by hand and make 10 a day and sell them and provide a decent living to myself... but because I am greedy I stay up all night and work weekends and holidays and make now 20 widgets a day. But im actually super greedy so I take 10 widgets worth of money I make extra and build some machines that can make 100 widgets a day. I am even more greedy so I get 10 machines like that, now I make 1000 widgets a day. All because of my greed I now provide 1000 people a day with something they want and have 5 employees who now can make a living. GREED IS GOOD.

So simply saying its greedy to blackmail someone, I don't accept that as a useful argument.

In fact, here is an argument for the moral goodness of blackmail (and by blackmail I am meaning information, not threat of violence):

 

If you do something you could be blackmailed for, you did something immoral. (ie. cheat on spouse)

If you do something that punishes immoral behavior that is good.

Blackmail punishes immoral behavior.

Therefore, Blackmail is good.

 

Further, if you dont incentivize a behavior, nobody will do it.

Blackmail provides incentive for people to do it.

Therefore people will blackmail.

 

 

 

[RichardY]

4 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Here is the problem though. If I sign a contract stating I am willing to take the risks of boxing Mike Tyson and agreeing to the rules of boxing, then what gives you the right to judge ON MY BEHALF or intervene or punish Mike Tyson? If him beating me severely in this instance you deem to be aggression and immoral such that something ought to be done actively interferes with the whole point of the NAP. It the same principles of collectivism. That you an unrelated party are going to interfere with a negotiated agreement on their behalf because they are too stupid to do so on their own... because "you know better." I don't see any way you could justify stopping or afterwards punishing Mike Tyson in this instance without completely disregarding NAP.

I didn't say immoral, only that it would be aggression to go fullout in an exhibition match(increased permanent physical damage,....WWE), or in sparring for instance. Against an unevenly matched opponent. Any moral component would be someone("who knows better") throwing in the towel, before someone dies. If they don't I wouldn't consider that immoral.
 

4 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Why would you consider it bad form? I think it is its most traditional and viewed form of NAP. Aggression is defined, often in terms of NAP, as the initiation of violence. (Some will say initiation of force, however they then say force is that situation is a synonym for violence. If they did not, then simply paying someone to build your house would be using economic force and a violation of NAP, which I assume we can agree is obviously not what anyone means here.)

If you think it covers more than the initiation of violence, then what exactly do you mean? I think you will have a very difficult time to determine a usable definition as you have changed something from an rule that requires no interpretation to one that requires subjective opinion to interpret. That I think is a  big problem because the draw of the NAP is it is very simple and has no exceptions and could apply anywhere at any time. If you add subjective qualities to it, you can't simply just apply it in every circumstance any more.

In which case why use a synonym and not the actual word, why not NVP? Screw the sentimentality. "If the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names"; Why is the NAP exempt? - Interesting quote was by Confucius(often quoted by Stefan).

I think depends on the individual, a psychopath would in theory have no experience of being aggressive (copying others behaviour), and the NAP would be redundent. I think you have no subjective qualities, you're no longer talking about people. Age of consent, IQ, state of mind, adult or minor.

4 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

I doubt its psychological because not everyone has hang ups over money. See all prostitutes, drug dealers, blackmailers, etc and those that don't inherently think those things are immoral. Its simply a cultural learning, which is very strong. Its the whole, "its cool to make some art but if you do it for money you are a big corp man and its not cool anymore" kind of hippy vibe thing, "don't be a sellout, man". That is very ingrained into the culture. You are a wonderful person to build a house for someone for free but you are a terrible person if you build lots of houses for money because you destroy the environment and are a capitalist for profit person... meanwhile you are lowering costs of housings across a whole market for thousands of people and providing jobs for 50 others.

My point is the NAP is not Moral. Morality exists, but it isn't the NAP. (How can something exist that is a negation?). Adding money as a form of extortion in blackmail makes no difference. People may act moral in general, but when the chips are down. Kill or be killed.

 

4 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Greed is the maximization of value. If nobody was greedy, we wouldn't be able to produce nearly as much total economic value. Capitalism as a means of providing increasing economic growth and advancement only functions because most people are mostly greedy. I could make widgets by hand and make 10 a day and sell them and provide a decent living to myself... but because I am greedy I stay up all night and work weekends and holidays and make now 20 widgets a day. But im actually super greedy so I take 10 widgets worth of money I make extra and build some machines that can make 100 widgets a day. I am even more greedy so I get 10 machines like that, now I make 1000 widgets a day. All because of my greed I now provide 1000 people a day with something they want and have 5 employees who now can make a living. GREED IS GOOD.

So simply saying its greedy to blackmail someone, I don't accept that as a useful argument.

I never said it was greedy to blackmail. QUOTE: "If morality has psychological benefits I think it has appeal, but doing it purely for greed. So maybe can't be moral, perhaps purely a deferal of gratifcation thing."  A means is not, an end. - The why be good question.

 

4 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

In fact, here is an argument for the moral goodness of blackmail (and by blackmail I am meaning information, not threat of violence):

If you do something you could be blackmailed for, you did something immoral. (ie. cheat on spouse).

If you do something that punishes immoral behavior that is good.

Blackmail punishes immoral behavior.

Therefore, Blackmail is good.

 

Further, if you dont incentivize a behavior, nobody will do it.

Blackmail provides incentive for people to do it.

Therefore people will blackmail.

Blackmail profits from immoral behaviour. It can't be a good, as it's a means to an end.

---------

You're "Strawmanning" me twice. There are other instances as well.

[Kohlrak]

On 5/20/2018 at 6:14 PM, ofd said:

This is false. There are a lot of cases where you legitimately and morally don't want the truth to come out. Say you intend to buy a lot of shares. Then you have a legitimate interest not to let that be known.
In a truly free ancap society you can purchase insurance against blackmail. How the private company deals with the blackmailer is their problem.

For what? haggling? How can anyone know what my intentions are? I could say that i intend to buy, and someone could try using that against me, but if it wasn't on the table, why would i be there to haggle? If the prices aren't right, I won't buy. If i can't control my mouth and that which only i know becomes known to those who would use it against me, that's my own fault. If i tel someone, and my enemies found out, either i was bugged (which you can make a moral case for disallowing) or the person I told is the one who broke the trust.

[ofd]

Quote

For what? haggling?

No, for front running.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_running Trading is based on a large part on the asymmetry of information. If everyone had the same information, there would be little to no trading left.

[smarterthanone]

On 5/24/2018 at 4:30 PM, RichardY said:

Blackmail profits from immoral behaviour. It can't be a good, as it's a means to an end.

Sorry I forgot about thread but to respond to this...

Blackmail profits from disincentivizing immoral behavior. So of course it can be good. Its a punishment for behaving immorally.

 

 

[RichardY]

5 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Sorry I forgot about thread but to respond to this...

Blackmail profits from disincentivizing immoral behavior. So of course it can be good. Its a punishment for behaving immorally.

My point is no immoral behaviour or the feeling of immoral behaviour. No Blackmail. 

Blackmail isn't a punishment. Why tell the other person if you don't do X, I'll tell so and so. It's manipulation with the potential for extortion. Blackmail doesn't profit it's a means.

[smarterthanone]

8 hours ago, RichardY said:

My point is no immoral behaviour or the feeling of immoral behaviour. No Blackmail. 

Blackmail isn't a punishment. Why tell the other person if you don't do X, I'll tell so and so. It's manipulation with the potential for extortion. Blackmail doesn't profit it's a means.

So if you only behave in moral ways, you will not be blackmailed. You must behave in immoral ways to open yourself to blackmail. I don't see the problem.

[RichardY]

Blackmail can't be a good if it profits from immoral behaviour.

[smarterthanone]

On 6/13/2018 at 4:42 PM, RichardY said:

Blackmail can't be a good if it profits from immoral behaviour.

Rehabilitating criminals cannot be good if it profits from immoral behavior.

So you would also find rehabilitating criminals to not be good?

There isn't a problem profiting from immoral behavior because its profiting for fixing/minimizing/punishing the immoral behavior, not condoning or helping spread immoral behavior. Big difference.

[RichardY]

5 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Rehabilitating criminals cannot be good if it profits from immoral behavior.

So you would also find rehabilitating criminals to not be good?

There isn't a problem profiting from immoral behavior because its profiting for fixing/minimizing/punishing the immoral behavior, not condoning or helping spread immoral behavior. Big difference.

Well if you want to invest your resources in rehabilitating Pedo's, Rapists, Murderers and Thieves. Good for you.