Freedomain Radio

I was having a discussion with a "progressive" friend of mine and he asked "if human societies can order themselves, why aren't we already in anarcho-libertopia?" To which I responded, "well, there's always been two competing survival strategies--the rape-and-pillage model and the cooperate-and-trade model, but the cooperating traders haven't yet realized they don't need to imbue the raping pillagers with an aura of divine right to gain their protection from other raping pillagers--rather, they can buy and sell protection like any other service.... etc."

He said "I don't think you can draw such a clear line between win-win, voluntary interactions and win-lose, coercive interactions. After all, sometimes people get ripped off or get the raw end of the deal in commercial transactions. There's a grey area that has to be balanced."

My response, of course, is, "I think there's a pretty clear line--after all, there's a difference between sleeping with someone voluntarily and regretting it later and being raped--that is, there's a big difference between buyer's remorse and theft."

But this got me thinking: in libertopia, we tend to think of fraud as a form of theft and often use the notion of fraud to defend our idea that commercial transactions are "win-win." That is, we anarchists tend to say, "if a voluntary transaction takes place then it must be win-win, at least from the perspective of those transacting at the time of the transaction, otherwise the transaction wouldn't occur." But we make an exception for fraud because the idea is that an interaction isn't voluntary if one party is being deceived about the nature of what he's getting. That is, we are basically saying, fraud=theft.

But let's say you borrow your rich friend's Ferrari and tell a girl at a bar that you're a big-shot with your own company, etc. when you're actually just barely making ends meet. She sleeps with you, thinking you're a big shot and later regrets it when she realizes you're not. Now I think the general culture today, as well as the legal system, would say, "that was immoral and that guy is a jerk, but it's not the same as rape, since she did ultimately choose to sleep with him voluntarily, even if she was deceived about who exactly he was." And, I would say, it makes sense in that outside of prostitution, sex is a personal interaction, not a commercial interaction.

But still, if we are going to use the example of rape vs. love-making to explain to people the clear-cut line between voluntary and non-voluntary, does this metaphor get us into trouble in that it might either lead us to the conclusion that under Libertarian morality, since sex under false pretenses is not rape, therefore fraud is not theft, therefore there is a grey area with regard to voluntary/win-win in commercial transactions OR alternatively, since fraud is theft, therefore sex under false pretenses is rape? (also not a conclusion I'm comfortable with--obviously, I think sex under false pretenses is immoral, but I'm also not comfortable saying it's the same as rape).

Fraud is voluntary, and is not theft.  In the example you gave, the woman made a poor decision, with a predictably poor outcome.  There is no UPB-valid moral rule that allows one to respond to fraud with violence, as one could with rape or theft.  In libertopia, fraudsters would be known by their trackrecords, and ostracized until they made restitution and reformed themselves.

I think you make the mistake of comparing sex under false pretense to rape instead of fraud. Just like a voluntary transaction under false pretense isn't theft, sex under false pretenses can't be rape. I would argue it's fraud in both cases.

But if fraud is voluntary, then doesn't that hurt the notion that voluntary interactions are always win-win? If some voluntary interactions are win-lose, do we also end up losing some of our clear distinction between what is and isn't voluntary? For example, being robbed isn't voluntary, but you chose to walk down that dark alley at night, so you had some choice in the matter, etc.

Voluntary interactions are not always win-win.  Every day two traders exchange some security, and one of them loses.  Voluntary interactions are interactions that are chosen, whether they result in what one expected, desired, or planned, or not.

In the earlier example, the woman had planned on landing a bigshot, and had at least some reason to think she was, but she turned out to be wrong.  That doesn't make the interaction any less voluntary.

As for the example of choosing to walk down an alley, the choice to put oneself in circumstances with higher risk of coercion, is not the same as not being coerced.  But I get where you're heading, and I am sure it's possible to come up with more ambiguous situations, to which I can only say this is a gray area and determinations of responsibility m need to be made on a case-by-case basis.

Fraud is not voluntary. If you give someone money in return for a fridge, you only consent to giving the product of your labour and life to someone in return for a fridge.

UPB tells us that violence is Evil whereas Lying is aesthetically negative.

Therfore;

Violence + the Exchange of Goods = Theft = Evil

Violence + Sex = Rape = Evil

Lying + the Exchange of Goods = Fraud = Aesthetically Negative

Lying + Sex = "Being Sleazy" (there is no dedicated word for it) = Aesthetically Negative

Sex by fraud is rape. A prostitute only consents to having sex with you in return for money. Not paying a prostitute would be rape.

And it is good news because if lying to get sex were rape then the police would have to imprison every women with make-up and every guy who ever exaggerated to impress a women.

If this occurred then the tiny band of remaining "innocents" would have to become full time job prison guards just to keep the "criminals" fed.

DoctorCapitalist:

Sex by fraud is rape. A prostitute only consents to having sex with you in return for money. Not paying a prostitute would be rape.

I disagree with your conclusion.

Not paying a prostitute after services rendered is a simple case of fraud...rape does not compound the picture.  Just as receiving some service void of goods delivered or used up in the service, say hiring someone to clean your house but you have supplied all the materials needed and they only do the labor, then not paying them.  This is theft, of which fraud is a subset as it achieves theft but through indirect means.  You would not say that the house cleaner was enslaved by virtue of not being paid just as a prostitute was not raped.  He/she agreed to the sexual part of the transaction which precludes rape but what is at issue is payment.  Not paying for the services does not change the nature of the exchanged goods or services but only means that one party failed to live up to their end of the bargain.  A prostitute going after restitution would only, in my opinion, get the agreed upon price plus expenses and penalties and not a victim's compensation for a rape victim.

I would also say that lying to someone for sex is also not rape.  Someone did not have all the information or the correct information to base a sound decision on whether to have sex with someone but in the end, if the act was voluntary for both parties it is not rape.  This is just a simple case of someone being an asshole not a criminal.  Making uneducated choices poorly educated ones is regrettable but the fault lies with the one who chooses not upon society to educate that person.

well, fraud is a kind of theft. Strange that so many people here do not know this..

Stating something as a fact does not make it so...

If you have a rational explanation to support your position I would like very much to hear it.

If you prefer, you can define theft to include fraud.  However then you do not have a distinction between a violent act and a nonviolent one, and you would need to differentiate between violent theft and non-violent theft.  Previously, I was considering theft to include only violent theft.

Thinking about this, my choice of wording is not good, since there are non-violent forms of theft besides fraud.  For example one can walk away with someone else's property, without doing violence, and arguably trespassing is also nonviolent theft.

My main point was that there is no UPB-valid rule allowing one to initiate violence on non-violent thieves, whether frauds, trespassers, or whatever.  Though it would be a UPB-valid rule that allowed you to defraud them/trespass on them/steal nonviolently from them in response.

If fraud was theft, you would be correct.  But if you call somebody a "fraud," it just means that they are a liar.  There's nothing objective that gets stolen when you lie to somebody.  It's not that it can't hurt other people or that it's not potentially damaging to your conscience if you don't make amends.  It's what others decide to do based on your lies that objective consequences begin to accrue.

Fraud can enable theft, but you can also enable theft by holding a knife to somebody's throat.  As far as I'm aware (and which has been pointed out), there's no word (at least, not in English) for "lying for sex."

You would think there would be a word or a phrase for it because it is just so widespread!

Another problem with your formulation is that rape is defined as non-consensual sex.  There are some gray areas, such as when the would-be victim voluntarily impairs their own judgment, but it is still the case that they have chosen to do so, but people generally recognize when they're experiencing "fucker's remorse" as opposed to being forced to have sex.

If they lie about having a disease, then that's a little bit more like theft as there's a risk of real physical harm, but it is still otherwise consensual in the moment.

My opinion is that your body is one of your most valuable resources and that you should be as honest with yourself as possible before consenting to sexual activity... if you're honest with yourself, it's going to be much more difficult to be snowed by somebody who's trying to manipulate you for sex.

alexlaird87:

Stating something as a fact does not make it so...

If you have a rational explanation to support your position I would like very much to hear it.

I always thought fraud was theft by non-delivery; i.e. you get some good and do not pay for it so you have stolen.  Like in the analogies, what was stolen was not the item or service you agreed to purchase but the money/items/services you withheld but had agreed to exchange.

After reading JamesP's post I am beginning to question my assumption.  The more I think about it the more his definition seems correct: that fraud is no more than lying but when it is used as a means to steal we apply a special word, "fraud", to it and acculturation is making me draw a distinction between the two terms that may not exist.