From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Fri Jan 31 2003 - 10:30:52 MST
"Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@ocean.com.au> Wrote:
> I like free speech AND defamation laws.
Mutually exclusive. In the long run everybody would benefit if defamation
laws were abolished, except for trial lawyers. You seem to think that if we
didn't have libel laws the sum total of all reputations in a society would
go down, I don't see how that could happen and don't see how it would matter
if it did, reputation is a relative scale after all. I think libel laws just
make reputations more inaccurate.
> Free speech can sometimes be cheap speech.
It usually is, but so what? If I say bad things about you it will only be
really damaging to you if my reputation is good. If I have a history of
making similar charges that turned out to be untrue anything I say will just
be shrugged off. I think a free market of ideas should determine what is
true and what is not, the idea of some an official body making such a decree
gives me the creeps.
>despite understanding the principle of tit-for-tat, one doesn't need
>to personally punch every nose, return every shot or refute every bit
>of pissant nastiness.
I could not agree more.
>By leveraging knowledge of the law one can delegate.
Why not delegate to your potential customers, let them figure out what your
reputation should be. The successful ones will be those who have correctly
determined what your reputation should be, those who don't want to do
business with you because they incorrectly think your reputation is too low
will soon be put out of business by those who make the correct judgments.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:04 MST