If you insist that aggression only means physical attack, then trespass on others’ property (say, breaking into their house when they are not home) is not aggression. In that case we have to classify it as trespass–using someone’s owned resources without their permission. Most people think ti’s conceptually cleaner to treat trespass as a type of aggression–they are both uses of others’ resources without their permission–wehther the body (which would be a type of attack) or owned resources (trespass). in any case, whether you consider property trespass as aggression or not, it is unlibertarian, and fraud is also for the same reason: fraud means you use deception to acquire access to someoen’s property, without their genuine or informed consent. So it’s just a type of trespass. Fraud is just a way of committing trespass, a means of doing it. That’s why I say the best way to think of it is theft (or trespass) by trick. So whatever type of crime trespass or theft is, fraud is just a species of that.

if i claim to offer insurance and someone sends me premiums but all the while i never intend to ‘insure’ anything but just spend the cash…that would seem to me to be fraud. title transfer of cash for a (unknown to the insurance purchaser) non-existent insurance service.

but if i put a label on a piece of apparel to trick the buyer into believing that the apparel is a specific brand…that is not fraud but dishonesty because anyone can brand a piece of apparel any way they wish ’cause noone owns letters, colors and shapes.

i dont see aggression anywhere…forcibly taking money for insurance wold seem to be mobbish aggression.

am i misunderstanding something?

“I have a problem with that statement. If that were true, then hate crimes, would be somehow worse than crimes commited with other motives or reasons other than racism, etc. A killing is a crime not because of what the killer was thinking or what he wanted to accomplish, but because it was an unconsented-to use of force against a body owner. This is aggression.

“It doesn’t matter the motivation (pyschology deals with that). What matters is that there has been a victim.”

this may be a slight overstatement; see my post
Hate Crime–Intentional Action and Motivations.

Nothing to see here…move along…

Right. Look. I often insist on precision at an early state, even if it takes time and sidetracks,because in my experience failure to do so can allow imprecision to sneak in and be used at a later stage to arrive at incorrect conclusions. So I’ve been trying to force you to speak precisely, to ask the question properly, or coherently, etc, to avoid any ambiguity.

“I of course think that if I obtain property from someoen by means of a misrepresentation (such as, a misrepresentation as to who I am, if that is material), sure, that can be a case of fraud. Why do you think I ever denied this? Seriously?”

“You have repeatedly stated that it is not actionable, that I may not sue someone for deliberately and fraudulently using my name/trademark.”

Um. You seem smart. Why can you not understand what I have said dozens of times now. A misreprenstation used to get property from A gives A the right to sue me for fraud. If the misrepresentation *concerns a third party C* (e.g., if the misrepresentation is that I am selling you products-of-C when I am not), then C does not get a right to sue me. It is still A.

That is why YOU may not sue someone for using your name. They are not defrauding YOU they are defruading the poeple they are dealing with. I do not insist you agree with me on this, but surely you can see THAT THIS IS WHAT I am claiming. Can you not even see this?

“You have been very consistant about this, claiming that since I am not the buyer I have not been harmed, and therefore have no standing what so ever.

“This is a contradiction with your statement that there is some basis for trademark. Do You Understand?”

No. I have said that the only way to justify trademark is to say that defrauded CUSTOMERS have the right to sue, NOT THE TRADEMARK OWNER. I stated this extremely explicitly in the trademark discussion in my long Against IP article.

Killing someone can be a crime, and killing someone can be perfectly legitimate. The difference is motive, reason, purpose. It is reason, motive, purpose that create fraud.

I have a problem with that statement. If that were true, then hate crimes, would be somehow worse than crimes commited with other motives or reasons other than racism, etc. A killing is a crime not because of what the killer was thinking or what he wanted to accomplish, but because it was an unconsented-to use of force against a body owner. This is aggression.

It doesn’t matter the motivation (pyschology deals with that). What matters is that there has been a victim.

Well, right, not only that, in sense, there ARE no “cubes”.

“It would be like the person who invented the idea of the atom claiming property ownership of all atoms, or a filter company owning all rights to “fresh air”. So while the physical object(s) are scarce and ownable, the ideas around them are not.”

Yes.

“Yet also scarce are the bearing oilers made by the McCoy manufacturing company. In order for something to have the words “The Real McCoy” on it, to be represented as a McCoy bearing oiler, it must in fact be a real McCoy.”

Sure. Otherwise it coudl be fraud. COULD be, not necessarily is.

Let me give you an example. Suppose I want a Louis Vuitton purse. It costs $1000. Or, I can buy a knockoff for $20. So I buy the knockoff. I *want* it to be falsely labeled. Am I defrauded? No. Who is defrauded? No one. Whose rights are violated? No one’s. Only LV’s–and only if there is a right to reputation, which there is not.

Arguably, people who see me with the purse are deceived into thinking I have an expensive purse. I am in a sense lying to them. But is this fraud? No. Mere lying is not fraud.

NEXT!

“Claiming that one is, when it is not, is fraud.”

Sure. If I sell you el-cheapo screwws w/ McCoy on them to make you think they really come from McCoy, I am defrauding you.

“Just like someone named MacDonald can open a restaurant and call it “MacDonald’s” without there being any fraud involved, someone else can utilize the name “MacDonald’s” to deliberately defraud the buyer by leveraging the meaning of “MacDonald’s” that that buyer attaches to that name.”

Sure. Fine. It’s all context related.

“Killing someone can be a crime, and killing someone can be perfectly legitimate. The difference is motive, reason, purpose.”

And consent. Did you have consent of the killee.

“I of course think that if I obtain property from someoen by means of a misrepresentation (such as, a misrepresentation as to who I am, if that is material), sure, that can be a case of fraud. Why do you think I ever denied this? Seriously?”

You have repeatedly stated that it is not actionable, that I may not sue someone for deliberately and fraudulently using my name/trademark. You have been very consistant about this, claiming that since I am not the buyer I have not been harmed, and therefore have no standing what so ever.

This is a contradiction with your statement that there is some basis for trademark. Do You Understand?

I can own a cube, I cannot own “cube” the mathematical construct. It would be like the person who invented the idea of the atom claiming property ownership of all atoms, or a filter company owning all rights to “fresh air”. So while the physical object(s) are scarce and ownable, the ideas around them are not.

Yet also scarce are the bearing oilers made by the McCoy manufacturing company. In order for something to have the words “The Real McCoy” on it, to be represented as a McCoy bearing oiler, it must in fact be a real McCoy. Claiming that one is, when it is not, is fraud. It seems like ownership of an idea, but it’s not.

Just like someone named MacDonald can open a restaurant and call it “MacDonald’s” without there being any fraud involved, someone else can utilize the name “MacDonald’s” to deliberately defraud the buyer by leveraging the meaning of “MacDonald’s” that that buyer attaches to that name.

Killing someone can be a crime, and killing someone can be perfectly legitimate. The difference is motive, reason, purpose. It is reason, motive, purpose that create fraud.

“I believe this to be actionable and you don’t.”

You think if you deliberately use your name this is “actionable” “fraud”? Or are you saying if I use your name to defraud someone, then it is actionable?

I of course think that if I obtain property from someoen by means of a misrepresentation (such as, a misrepresentation as to who I am, if that is material), sure, that can be a case of fraud. Why do you think I ever denied this? Seriously?

“Trademark is nothing else. It is reputation.”

Well, that is imprecise language and use of metaphor that is prone to misunderstanding. A trademark is a mark associated with a given product or service. As i explain in my article on IP, “A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol, or design used to identify the source of goods or services sold, and to distinguish them from the goods or services of others. For example, the Coca-Cola ® mark and the design that appears on their soft drink cans identifies them as products of that company, distinguishing them from competitors such as Pepsi®.”

So it is just not true that “trademark is reputation.” The concepts are related, perhaps, but it’s a false equation.

I have explained that trademark in its current form is not justifiable because it gives a right to the trademark owner, which does imply a right in one’s reputation, in a sense. I stated that a version of trademark could be justified but only if the rihgt to sue is the right of the deceived customer. This analysis does not at all rest on the notion that “trademark is reputation” or that there is a right to reputation.

I honestly am not sure what you think we disagree on. Why don’t you try to clarify?

“If there is any basis what so ever for “trademark” at any level, then you are allowing that reputation has meaning.”

? I never said reputation “has no meaning”. What are you talking about?

“In fact, what good is it to missrepresent if there is no benefit to be gained? Why say “apples” if what you’re really selling is sludge, unless there is benefit in missrepresenting it, in leveraging the reputation of “apples” as held by the buyer?”

Sure, there is a *reason* people commit fraud–to obtain others’ property when they otherwise coudln’t (because they konw they don’t have the real means to pay for it–this is “why” they misrepresent that they do). Sure, they commit fraud to gain a benefit. And your point is—?

“Replace “apples” with “MacDonald’s”, it makes no difference. Either there is something there to leverage, some purpose to “trademark”, some benefit for the perpetrator of the fraud, or there is not.”

Right, a McD’s has an easier time getting customers because of the reputation it’s built up. Sure. So? This is why people do knockoffs. I erect a fake McD’s b/c it would get more customers than if I set up “Curt’s hamburgers”. And the victims are the customers who believe they are buying a genuine McD’s burger. McD is not the victim.

Anyway I gave almost the same hamburger example in my IP article. I have no idea what you are getting frustrated about, other than maybe an inability on your part to coherently and precisely state your views.

“You cannot say there is, and at the same time that there is not, which is all I see you doing.”

What? I have never denied there is such a thing as reputation. What in the world are you jabbering about?

Hey–this is not my wife is it? Cin–is that you?

“Indeed several discussions between you and I have been vigorous, but the anonymity of your screen name helps greatly. “It’s nothing personal” is a literal fact.”

“Mr. Kinsella does not have the benefit of my imagination filling in the blanks. His obvious accomplishments mean I cannot dismiss him as a mutant maple tree who’s learned to type only recently. That’s extreme, but I hope you get the idea. :^)”

Could you repeat the question?

Person: “Stephan_Kinsella: You seem to use the “gadfly” smear as a substitute for thought.”

No; just an explanation for why I sometimes stop taking some people seriously. Not saying you fall in this category all the time; I vaguely recall having formed that impression some times in the past.

“You would do well to learn the meaning of the words you use. A “gadfly” is a “persistent or irritating critic; a nuisance”. One way to be persistent or irritating is to constantly point out blatant contraditions in your ideas and your constant pretence of not understanding that, so the fact that someone is a “gadfly” does not suffice as reason to ignore them.”

Ask serious question or make serious points in serious ways, without sophistry or attitude, and maybe you’ll make some headway.

“I have said, over, and over, that your use of the argument “IP is invalid because information isn’t scarce” is irrelevant an confused.”

I seem to recall this.

“People don’t fight over information; they fight over its use in physical objects.”

Uh, yeah, this is actually my criticism of IP. That it amounts to assigning property rights in pre-owned physical objects to latecomers merely because they thought of a recipe.

“There is conflict in this dimension, ergo it is the domain of property rights.”

Er… right. And I have explained that as a libertarian, I believe such conflict should be solved by assgning property rights in the object in question, to the one with a better claim to it; and that this is the person who, ceteris paribus, possessed it first as between the competing claimants. I.e., the Lockean homesteading approach. And that to grant IP rights would mean an exception to this rule. And I also pointed out that this is really what all crime, socialism, statism, amounts to: deviations from the libertarian propery-assigning rule; so to that extent IP is similar to all these other non-libertarian systems.

“I have explained this to you multiple times and multiple ways, yet you still appeal to information’s non-scarcity as if it were ironclad proof of the invalidity of IP.”

Information’s non-scarcity shows that it is just not the kind of thing we assign property rights in. Quite right. Yet you want to anyway. You do it by taking my rights in my objects and giving part of them to the innovator. I call that theft.

“You need to be honest with yourself and for once in your life, admit when you are wrong.”

I am honestly wrong.

“I’m sorry that I made it too difficult to dig up personal information on me; you’ll unfortunately have to focus on my ideas instead.”

Darn you!

I believe this to be actionable and you don’t. If you were able to leave it at that, I would be happy to disagree and walk away. But you can’t.

Trademark is nothing else. It is reputation. If there is any basis what so ever for “trademark” at any level, then you are allowing that reputation has meaning.

In fact, what good is it to missrepresent if there is no benefit to be gained? Why say “apples” if what you’re really selling is sludge, unless there is benefit in missrepresenting it, in leveraging the reputation of “apples” as held by the buyer?

Replace “apples” with “MacDonald’s”, it makes no difference. Either there is something there to leverage, some purpose to “trademark”, some benefit for the perpetrator of the fraud, or there is not. You cannot say there is, and at the same time that there is not, which is all I see you doing.

I have said, over, and over, that your use of the argument “IP is invalid because information isn’t scarce” is irrelevant an confused. People don’t fight over information; they fight over its use in physical objects. There is conflict in this dimension, ergo it is the domain of property rights. I have explained this to you multiple times and multiple ways, yet you still appeal to information’s non-scarcity as if it were ironclad proof of the invalidity of IP.

You need to be honest with yourself and for once in your life, admit when you are wrong. I’m sorry that I made it too difficult to dig up personal information on me; you’ll unfortunately have to focus on my ideas instead.

Mr. Kinsella does not have the benefit of my imagination filling in the blanks. His obvious accomplishments mean I cannot dismiss him as a mutant maple tree who’s learned to type only recently. That’s extreme, but I hope you get the idea. :^)

Howland — look. I have all along, for years, said trademark can be justified as a type of fraud perpetrated on the buyers, by the seller falsely representing his identity. I pointed this out early in this thread and never hid it. I have been very clear all along my basis for this: that it is a type of fraud by the seller on the buyer. But it does not imply a right to reputation, and indeed I have consistently written about this too.

If you want to imagine some “reputation” aspect is involved in a given case of fraud, and then generalize by saying, “well that shows there is a right to reputation,” you are just confused. THis just does not follow. Are you saying this? I have no idea, because I asked you to clarify/elaborate but you failed to do so.

If you can’t understand why saying A can defraud B does not imply a right to a reputation, I can’t help you. If you can’t see this is a pure non sequitur by you, what do you want me to say? You keep meandering around saying I said something earlier to your earlier statemetn contrary to what i’m saying now, but when I ask you to point it out, you don’t, so I don’t know what you mean. I believe I could show you how and why you are reading the wrong things into what I say, and making the wrong implications, if you will carefully and coherently try to re-state your position. If not, not, fine by me, you can stay confused on this topic if you wish.

No, I cannot. Reputation is reputation is reputation. I don’t care if it’s apples, MacDonald’s, Sony or the name Stephen Kinsella. If someone uses those names, labels, pictures, references, deliberately in order to commit fraud against a buyer by leveraging their reputation, it’s all the same to me.

“I think you are not seeing the distinctions that are being made here.”

And I think the distinctions you are trying to make are arbitrary and futile. Oh, and not the least of which hellishly confusing and frustrating.

If there is any rationalization for Trademark that you agree with, you are allowing that it is reasonable for a third party not involved with the fraudulent transaction to take action. Your asserting that I may not sue, and then that there is a justification for trademark and therefore I may sue, is just impossibly confusing.

I am choosing to be confused rather than blame you for being a hypocrite. I don’t believe for a moment that YOU think you’re being hypocritical. What confuses me most of all is that when I hold it up to your eyes in as plain and obvious a fashion as it is possible for me to do so, you still deny that the contradiction exists.

“In your example of the apples, the buyer had an expectation that “apples” would be edible. The seller utilized this expectation, created by the buyers previous experience with prior third parties, to perpetrate the fraud that these apples _also_ were edible.”

Here’s how I view it (as I’ve explained several times, and linked to a more detailed discussion of it in my contract theory article): the buyer transfers title to his payment (gold whatever) *conditional on* his “receiving (good) apples”.

So if the seller takes the gold in exchange for bad apples, the seller is now in possession of gold that the title has not transfered (b/c the condition was not triggered). so he got the money as a sort of theft-by-trick.

“It’s your example, I thought you would be aware of what you had been talking about.”

Sure.

“”Really? Can you show me one particular case of something you said that I disagreed with, that I now am agreeing with? Just one case. Come on.”

“This is what I was referring to when I said that your replies to me are loaded with contradiction and challenge.

“Several months ago, I said that it was prosecutable for someone to utilize a name or other “trade mark” fraudulently. You said it was not, that there is no basis for “reputation” or trademark, that I have no basis for bringing charges against someone who knowingly and deliberately uses my name, my trademark, my production, passing it off as their own, because that person has not specifically harmed me,”

Yes, and I stand by this. Can’t you see the differences?

First, my apple argument above has nothing to do with reputation.

Second, as i have stated many times, if a seller misrepresents the source of the goods he is selling, he may well be defrauding *his customer*. However, he is NOT “defrauding” or harming (in any libertarianly-recognizable way) the third party whose trademark he is using. For example if you sell me your own home brew beer and label it “Coors” then you are defrauding ME, but you are not defrauding or aggressing against Coors.

“Now I read that you are claiming a Libertarian basis for trademark, directly contradicting what you said in that discussion.”

NO, not at all. I think you are not seeing the distinctions that are being made here.