My stance toward libertarianism is similar to my view of Arminianism: wrong, but certainly not heretical
On what basis do you substantiate Arminianism to be “wrong”?
Do the myriad scriptures referencing Christ’s sacrifice for “all” and for “the world” mean something other than the plain text suggests?
Do you run roughshod over free will with the concept of predestination when both are clearly Biblical truths taught by scripture?
I’ve yet to see or hear a satisfactory explanation of the Calvinist conviction that Christ “died for some” (the predestined only) using the light of scripture.

Joe,
Do you subscribe to a Christian conservative view of the legality of blackmail? If so, could you summarize it and explain how it avoids the paradox that you see for Christian libertarians?
How does the Christian libertarian decide what should be considered a crime? How can blackmail be considered a sin that should not also be classified as a crime?
Is it your contention that all sins should also be crimes? If not, how do you escape this dilemma with regard to other sins and crimes?

Arminianism is wrong? How so?

Blackmail involves “Detraction”.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Chapter 2, Article 8, Section 3:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.[277] He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;[278]
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/eightnin.html#AGAINST
The item might not be a personal fault or sin, but might be something like that you were the victim of abuse when you were a child, or that someone in your family has a problem, or some other thing that you will be hurt by if exposed, although you are not guilty in any way.
Consider “rape shield” laws – there in court where it might bear significance, is it proper to consider wether the victim is a floozy or a virgin? Here there is an absolute law against bringing up the truth in a forum specifically designed to determine the truth.
I would also give another instance where there is a recognized medical or pastoral privilege on information in court – your pastor or priest cannot be compelled to expose information.
Lets go a step back and ask if I expose embarassing information or gossip which is FALSE, it would be libel or slander – and ought those be illegal or not as they limit “free speech” in an expansive definition?
Do you limit speech specifically designed to harm, including shouting “Fire” (or I suppose Anthrax or Sarin today) in a crowded theatre?
One other factor is whether the person doing the blackmail is entitled to the information. The CSS algorithm for DVD encryption was the source of a bit of humor as it was a trade secret which was part of court records until the MPAA lawyers had those sealed. Do we also accept trade secrets (including private contracts not to disclose) and/or things like copyrights which distributing true data is considered illegal.
If someone hacks your medical records, and finds you are being treated for an embarassing condition, or one which might cause harm if exposed (e.g. a potentially fatal or contagious disease, but you’ve told no one about it yet and are handling it), they have already committed a crime. The data is not a matter of public record.
In such cases, an offer to pay for a service is like an offer of a thief to let you buy back the stolen merchandise. The information – the content of the service – has been illegally obtained, so the person has no right to make it public, just as a thief has no right to sell a stolen object.
I think under such cases – false information, or information illegally obtained – we can agree that asking someone to pay to not be slandered or data-pirated should be illegal as it is a threat of doing an actual crime.
Credible threats of crime ought to be illegal in themselves whether it be murdering your body, destroying your property, or your reputation. It is called extortion when the threat is to your body or physical property. Blackmail is merely a more specific label when it involves the property right in your reputation.
The remaining case is where your reputation is technically false in some area. People believe you are an upstanding citizen, but you have some addiction (Maybe we can get more detailed records of who exactly orders porn at Promise Keeper’s conventions). The problem is that we all are sinners and have things we would rather not have exposed. Do unto others…
If the information is public, then I don’t think there would be a case, but if I tell you something as a friend in confidence, there is an implicit contract not to expose things even if the friendship dissolves.
The last case – eavesdroppers are violating privacy. If you lock your door, It is breaking and entering even if I pick the lock and do no damage. It would still be illegal if you left the door unlocked.
Your private space of information is something which I would attach a property right to – not much different than physical property or even some things in “cyberspace”. In order to obtain the information which is subject of blackmail, you would have to trespass into the space and steal the information. The information would not be yours to expose.
So first, what are combined are not moral or legal “whites”. The information which is to be spoken is “stolen merchandise”, and that the money for service is actually a threat to perform a criminal act damaging to the person. You have two “blacks” combining in such a way to be considered a worse crime.
It is compounded because enforcement of the property rights violated typically would cause the threat to become actualized.
Consider a parallel with kidnapping where the abductor says “go to the police and you will never see your child again”. Blackmail tends to package things easier – go to the police and the justice system will do the destruction automatically for me.
1. The information is in some sense stolen so there is no “free speech” right in the exposure – consider if I published the name, address, phone, birth date and social security number of someone here (inviting identity theft) – would that be free speech?
2. The offer is to undo a criminal act (which would be difficult to go to the police about) or not voilate a contract (when I give out information there are privacy policies) for pay.
3. If we allow people to benefit by finding areas of crime that are difficult to prosecute (or would hurt the victim worse), we encourage crime itself, thus in such cases the penalties must hurt the perpetrator much more than the twice damaged victim.

Nick Do you subscribe to a Christian conservative view of the legality of blackmail?
Yes, though I should clarify that I

My take fowhat it’s worth is that blackmail is illegal on the ground that making it so tends to deter blackmail. The value to society of you being able to get money from me to not have embarassing information disclosed is low, so why protect that interest. The danger that the target might kill a blackmailer to keep him quiet, which danger can be lessened by deterring blackmail can’t be ignored. Finally, getting truthful information out is of value and blackmail tends to suppress such information.

Joe Carter states:
“When personal freedom conflicts with social relationships, libertarianism almost always side with the individual in a way that is not found in Scripture. While I

What a ridiculous supposition;
There’s nothing illegal about me showing you a gun that I legally own.
There’s nothing illegal about me asking to use your car.
Why is it that if I combine the two it’s illegal?
Hunh?

Branden I think your problem with Christian Libertarians hinges on this…
This is not OT Israel with a king sitting on the throne as chosen by God. In other words, we are not a theocracy.
First, I am not remotely close to being a dominionist, much less a theocrat. Second, you

Joe
I have moved my discuss over to the Vox site.
Please feel free to answer there if you like.

Joe, you left out the point of my recent post. It’s exatly in combination that you get a factor that doesn’t occur with either of the two in isolation. You get an element of coercion.
SonnyJim, it’s not exactly parallel, because if you pull a gun out and tell someone to do something, there is an implied threat that if they don’t you’ll shoot. It would be illegal to shoot. It’s not illegal to reveal embarassing information about someone. Both involve a kind of coercion, though, and even if you never intended to shoot I believe it’s illegal to threaten to shoot someone. It’s not illegal to threaten to reveal embarassing information about someone unless it’s also done in the context of trying to get someone to do something.
What I’m not sure of is whether that something you’re trying to get them to do is relevant to whether the blackmail is illegal. It’s not illegal to threaten your kids with telling their friends about some embarassing fact unless they take the trash out. It is illegal to try to influence a senator’s vote by threatening to publish pictures of the male senator getting it on with a man.

Oh for Pete’s sake, Joe, why are you making this so complicated? The whole thing falls apart with the premise: 2. There’s nothing immoral or illegal about asking for money in exchange for a service (in most cases).
What service is a blackmailer providing — not embarrassing someone?
If you look at this from a business law perspective, you do not have a commercial transaction. With a commercial transaction, there must be an offer, an acceptance, and consideration (something of value that is exchanged for the offer). You do not have those elements here. There is no service being provided, and there is not a willing acceptance of the alleged service. Therefore, the blackmailer is attempting to reap financial gain from not offering any service from a party who has not willingly accepted.
I don’t really see a paradox at all. It is illegal and immoral.

Here’s an article from the late great Murray Rothbard discussing the Libertarian view of blackmail…
From The Ethics of Liberty
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp
MK

CW In my humble opinion, comments on Arminianism and Catholicism should be seen as unfortunate slips…his article was not about those groups, so drawing them in through a such deragatory manner detracts from the writers thesis.
You make a good point. I certainly didn’t mean for it to come across as deragotary so it would have been wise to avoid any confusion. Although I obviously failed in the effort, my point was to try to show my support for the Christian libertarian view by associating it with other views that I respect, though personally reject.
The fact that I don’t agree with a belief, theory, or system should certainly not be viewed as a sign that “mine is inherently better.”
Soup I accept the charge leveled in your last statement, and note that by default you must have also rejected any and all critiques of Calvinism.
Not necessarily. I wouldn’t say that I’ve rejected any and all critiques of Calvinism. Some are quite valid and likely unresolvable (at least to my limited understanding). It is just that I have accepted more of the the critiques against Arminianism than I have Calvinism. Both my good points; I just think that Calvinism makes more of them.
I promise, though, that I’ll take up the topic soon.

Mike Come on now….If you don’t agree, then you must think that that idea is wrong (or you would agree with it).
True.
If you believe it’s wrong, why would you not think that your idea is better? Your comment sounds like so much of the relativist nonsense that’s being passed around these days. Surely you don’t think that all ideas are equal in value…..????
No, of course not. I

Ok…this will be a quick response because a) I am at work! and b) I fear I may be repeating something everyone understands but (I think) bears repeating.
Joe writes: “…libertarianism almost always side with the individual in a way that is not found in Scripture.”
Yes. Yes. Yes. This is true. So here is my argument in a nutshell. There is, in my mind, a stark separation between personal and political beliefs, e.g. there are many thing I would never let my brothers do that I am perfectly content to keep legal in the United States. This is necessary for practical reasons (coercion, historically, is a bigger killer than freedom), and acceptable because the Bible has no Sharia law–Christianity demands no congruence between personal beliefs and political legislation–and, as Josh notes, the Bible even seems to lay the groundwork for a philosophy that celebrates the liberty of each individual to make his or her own choices–for good or ill.
Maybe that is why libertarian Christians and other Christians speak past each other so often. It’s not that we think the individual should always be preferenced over the group. It’s that we think in political systems, the only reliable methodology is to preference the individual over the group in questions of coercion, and allow social relationships to add the nuances and texture of community.

Soup I accept the charge leveled in your last statement, and note that by default you must have also rejected any and all critiques of Calvinism.
Not necessarily. I wouldn’t say that I’ve rejected any and all critiques of Calvinism. Some are quite valid and likely unresolvable (at least to my limited understanding). It is just that I have accepted more of the the critiques against Arminianism than I have Calvinism. Both my good points; I just think that Calvinism makes more of them.
I promise, though, that I’ll take up the topic soon.
Posted by: Joe Carter at February 2, 2006 01:11 PM
Fair enough, but the end result is the same – rejection of Arminianism in favor of Calvinism.

Soup Fair enough, but the end result is the same – rejection of Arminianism in favor of Calvinism.
I hadn’t really thought of it as a zero-sum equation before. So are all Christians either Arminian or Calvinist? (I’m not saying that’s not the case, only that I’m wondering if there is something we aren’t missing.)

That is an interesting point to ponder, and I suppose the short answer could be “yes, even though they may not know it”.
I’d like to reflect upon this subject a bit and perhaps explore it on my blog later.
As iron sharpens iron…thanks Joe!
Look forward to the Arminianism vs. Calvinism thread!

I will say one thing though ;-)
I find that the most disturbing argument against Arminianism is regarding God’s knowledge of decisions that we free will beings make.
People respond that God would say, “whoops, didn’t know that was going to happen” or other statements similar to that.
But even if you detest Arminianism, how can you say that? God is wisdom. IF we truly have the free will argued in Arminianism, what decision can a free willing being make that God couldn’t anticipate? Are you saying God is stupid? There is not a single decision that a person (or prinicpality) can make that God can’t anticipate.
Joe,
How come your site never remembers my personal info any longer. I have to enter my name, email and click yes, yet it never retains.
Tim L

I think the “two rights make a wrong” analysis is a false construction of the question, at least when we conflate *moral* and *legal* questions.
Volokh’s point, of course, concerns the legal elements; his analysis asks why two legal actions, when conjoined, are justifiably considered criminal. It’s an interesting question, but I think Gordon’s first response above pretty well covers it. To use another common version, I have every right to shout “Fire!” if I like, and I have every right to go to a crowded theatre, but if I put the two actions together, I have not merely done two legal things, but I have endangered others, and will be charged accordingly.
The question, then, is what makes threats of exposure conjoined with demands for payment to avoid exposure different from the two separate actions.
The “rights” analysis above is interesting, but the “right to privacy” is so vexed that I would prefer to avoid that.
Blackmail is a property crime. It is the use of force (or, if one is lying, both force and fraud) to extort property.
Under any proper construction of human liberty, a just transfer of property involves mutually informed consent. If I withhold or misrepresent facts relevant to your decision, I commit fraud; if I use fraud or force (whether actual or threatened, whether physical or otherwise) to influence your consent contrary to your interests and intentions, then I have acquired your property unjustly. You are, then, entitled to appeal for restitution to whatever powers claim to uphold justice among us; failing that, you are entitled to compel me to restore what is yours, yourself. If Greg Forster’s around, he can probably quote chapter and verse from Locke on that, and we could find Blackstone, Bastiat, Hayek, or numerous others who would back that construction.
I am, certainly, free under such a construction to speak about your indiscretions. I am, moreover, free to ask you for money–and you are free to give me money (Please do, if you have any to spare ). I am also free to carry a gun. Neither the speech nor the gun, however, may be used to acquire property by coercion.
What is criminal in blackmail is neither the speech nor the demand, but the use of force (threat of force, in this case, doing a violence to you socially) to obtain property you would not otherwise give me.
I can carry a gun. I cannot threaten you with the gun. To do so is considered criminal. Why? Not just because it makes you afraid, but because the threat unjustly constrains your freedom to act.
That said, there are times when coercion is justified; there may be times when the particular form of coercion known as blackmail may also be justified. It is nearly impossible to imagine a case where blackmail-for-profit would be justified, however.
Cheers,
PGE

Two more quick things:
1) While I am a Christian, and consider myself a civil libertarian in political philosophy (albeit a conservative in politics, because libertarianism is impracticable as a full-fledged system), I think it is inappropriate to try to reason directly from theology to politics and arrive at a “Christian libertarianism.” Libertarian political philosophy does accord well with Christian principles, but it can only have traction where a certain sort of cultural consensus is available; under other cultural conditions, Christian principles might well support or even demand other approaches entirely. The philosophy would still be valuable to moral reflection on law, though.
2) an interesting parallel would be harassment: Nothing legally prevents my speaking to you on the street, and nothing legally prevents my demanding money from you; you are free to ignore me, give me money, berate me, or ridicule me. But if I come to you daily, or hourly, or constantly, with that demand, I do at some point constitute a marked impediment to your conduct of your affairs–I unjustly constrain your behavior. That becomes a coercive use of my presence and speech, and is justiciable.
Cheers,
PGE

Tim L writes;
“Are you saying God is stupid?”
If I am, was it my choice to say it?

Boonton,
Read Rothbards article that I linked to for a good Lib analysis–doesn’t describe it as unethical but is a good analysis.
The Christian point of view would be that blackmail is unethical because you are taking advantage of someone. A Christian should show love and compassion to his fellow man. Instead of saying that I’m going to tell everyone about your affair if you don’t pay me, I should offer advice to that person to encourage him to end the affair and help him see that what he is doing is hurting everyone.
Remember Jesus gave a new command–love one another–and Paul gave us the description of love in 1 Cor 13. If we as Christians applied this to everyone that we met, the world would have a very different opinion of Christians. See http://www.kindnessinjesus.org

The Christian point of view would be that blackmail is unethical because you are taking advantage of someone. A Christian should show love and compassion to his fellow man. Instead of saying that I’m going to tell everyone about your affair if you don’t pay me, I should offer advice to that person to encourage him to end the affair and help him see that what he is doing is hurting everyone.
Hmmmm I’m not so sure this follows even from the Christian POV Mike. It seems that blackmail could be viewed as a fair economic transaction between two parties that agree to an exchange. ‘Taking advantage of’ seems to imply that the ‘victim’ of blackmail has some type of property right in keeping the information secret which the blackmailer is violating. If the information was obtained in a confidential manner (such as a confessional or theraputic relationship) then you have an argument. But what about blackmail that does uses information that is not so protected?
Remember Jesus gave a new command–love one another–and Paul gave us the description of love in 1 Cor 13. If we as Christians applied this to everyone that we met, the world would have a very different opinion of Christians. See http://www.kindnessinjesus.org
Yes I’m sure you’re right however even in a world of all Christians who all apply Jesus’s rule perfectly commerce could still take place and people could still drive hard bargains. I’m not sure this is any different.

The right to keep information proprietary does NOT depend on the potential exposer’s motives. It doesn’t matter if I am trying to help poor music fans or hurt the record companies if I distribute an MP3. It is a violation of copyright. You have no right to have or expose medical records. (checked if your insurance company’s site is secure recently?)
There are standard procedures for things like IP rights, but there are also implicit (or even explicit) contracts. If you knew everything you said to your doctor would be public knowledge, you would probably not seek treatment for many things. The hippocratic oath includes a privacy provision. If custom gives me the expectation of privacy, then I have the right not to have the information exposed, or you need to inform me (think miranda warning) that anything I say can and will be made public based on my whim.
The only borderline case I can think of is some public but generally obscure or hard to access information (note: identity theives have combed court records, much easier online, but they have done so in the paper stacks). If the information was easily accessed, then there might have been (and maybe will be) laws to seal the information.
The case of known criminal conduct where instead of exposing the crime (so the investigation will focus on the proper individual – and innocents are going to be bothered by being investigated, and some are even convicted), the evil is in NOT reporting it. If I can pay you to do one evil act (not expose the true criminal), why shouldn’t I also be able to pay you to do other forms of evil?
Charging money for spiritual goods is the sin of simony (after simon magus in Acts who was blinded by God when he offered to pay for the holy spirit).
Or consider prostitution or a jury vote. These tend to be considered crimes only when money is charged or exchanged. Why cannot I pay for consent and why ought not the Judge’s gavel function just like an auctioneer’s? (I have a long answer, which I posted long ago on my blog, but provoking the thinking process is what I want to do here as it is another path to the right answer).

There are also other forms of blackmail.
For example, I could threaten Joe that I would spam his website and get a group together to spam his website everyday until it is gone off the web unless he pays us money not to do it.
That’s like Mobster window insurance. You pay us for window insurance. Those who don’t pay start winding up with broken windows all the time.
There are many different types of blackmail.

Threatening violence or property is more commonly referred to as extortion, but blackmail may be a special case of extortion, or perhaps in a more general usage (at m-w.com, the 1st definition for blackmail is an old one which is about threatening pillage).
The original post elsewhere was about someone threatening exposure of a senator’s sexual (dis)orientiation if they voted for Alito – which I would note did NOT involve money, but a senate vote (more akin to my example of a juror above).

@Eric & Lisa–
Not to take issue unnecessarily, but you are making a minor error in your post.
There are many forms of *extortion* (gaining money through threats). One kind of extortion is blackmail (gaining money through threats of exposure of harmful information).
There are, of course, different forms of blackmail, but it’s a little “off” to call extortion that doesn’t involve threats of *exposure* “blackmail.”
Cheers,
PGE