Subscribe to our Daily Blog

The Essence of Libety

Please Click ton Ab

Liberty knows no compromise

by Murray N. Rothbard

Chapter 16: Knowledge, True and False

Compiled and Edited

by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

Doe s Smith have a “right” (again, we are talking about a right and not the morality of exercising that right) to print and disseminate the statement that “Jones is a liar?” There are three logical possibilities: 1) the statement is true; 2) it is false and Smith knows it ; or 3) the truth is fuzzy—e.g. not certain and precisely knowable.

Suppose statement is indeed true. In that case Smith has a perfect right to print and disseminate it because that would be within his property rights. Is there really such a right as a “right to privacy?” If Smith is the owner of his own body, then he has a property right in the knowledge inside his head. Therefore he also has the corollary right to print and disseminate it. T here is no such thing as a right to privacy except the right to protect one's property from invasion . For example, wiretapping is a crime not because of some vague “invasion of privacy,” but because it is an invasion of a property right.

Sometimes persons “in the public eye” are distinguished from “private” persons in this regard. Such distinctions are fallacious because everyone has the same right in his person. Therefore, it is illegitimate to make distinctions between one group and another. By the same token, no one can have a property right in the knowledge in someone else's head.

How about the assertions that some individuals or groups (newspapermen, for example) have certain “special” privileges of confidentiality? And how about the assertion that the “public has a right to know?” Such claims are spurious. No one person or group has any sort of “ right” to know anything. Following from the above, if a man has the right to disseminate knowledge inside his head, then he also has the corollary right to not disseminate it. In other words, t here is no such thing as a “right to know.” There is only the right to either disseminate knowledge or to keep silent.

In the same manner, no particular profession can claim any particular right of confidentiality. Hence, not only newsmen and physicians, but everyone has the right to be silent—in court or anywhere else. No one should be forced (via compulsory subpoena power) to testify at all—not only against himself but against (or for) anyone else.

However, information that was procured under conditional (rather than absolute) ownership is an exception to the right to disseminate the knowledge (For example, Smith provides information to Jones but only on the condition that it be kept private.)

Further, violation of a patent or copyright is a violation of contract and theft of property. The seller is not selling the entire right to the patented or copyrighted property. He is only selling the right to do anything with the property except sell it or an identical copy to someone else.

Suppose Green sells Brown a mousetrap. Then suppose that Black sees it and produces and sells a replica. Should Black be prosecuted? Yes. And that is because no one can acquire a greater property title in something than has already been given away or sold—e.g. Black's property right in the ideas in Green's head is no greater than what Brown had.

If Smith has a right to disseminate knowledge about Jones (assuming it is true), he also has the right to be paid for not disseminating that knowledge—e.g. he has a right to “blackmail” Jones. This right is deducible from the general property right in one's person and knowledge. As with all voluntary exchanges, both parties benefit—Smith receives money and Jones obtains the benefit of Smith's not disseminating information about him. (Once again, we need to make the crucial distinction between the legitimacy of a right and the morality, or esthetics, of exercising that right.)

As a matter of fact, outlawing blackmail would actually encourage Smith to disseminate his information. Thus, the result would be an increased dissemination of derogatory information and Jones would be worse off from the outlawry of blackmail than if it was permitted.

Furthermore, there would be nothing unique about blackmail contracts. So, if Smith and Jones make a contract and Smith violates it, then Smith has stolen Jones's property (money).

On the other hand, suppose that the knowledge is false and Smith knows that it is false. Does he have the right to disseminate false information about Jones? Yes. Since Smith has a property right to the ideas in his own head, he has a property right to say that Jones is a “thief” even if he knows it to be false. The counter-view (and current basis for legal libel and slander) is that every man has a “property right” in his reputation . This is a fallacious. Although everyone owns his own body (including, of course, his head) no one can own the mind of anyone else. “Reputation” is purely a function of the subjective attitudes and beliefs contained in the minds of other people. Jones can in no way legitimately own or control the beliefs and minds of others because he has no property right in them.

In addition, when false libels are outlawed, the average person tends to believe that all derogatory reports spread about people are true (otherwise they would sue for libel). This discriminates against the poor since they are less likely to file suits against libelers. On the other hand, if libel were legitimate, everyone would know that false stories are legal which would cause far more skepticism on the part of the public. Plus, the current system discriminates against poorer people in another way. It restricts their own speech since they are less likely to disseminate true but derogatory knowledge about the wealthy for fear of being sued for libel.

Finally, if anyone has the right to knowingly spread false libels about someone else, then he of course has the right to disseminate “fuzzy” statements which are not clearly certain to be true or false.

Continue to the next chapter...

Back to the Table of Contents

Visit our Book Store

Visit Our Advertisers

Email for Advertising Rates

Use the link or send an email to: adinfo@flyover-press.com