THIRTEEN
NaturalLibertyRequiresAdherenceto Truth
LibertarianDefamationof LibelLaw
Lawsagainstlibelandslander,whichfall underthe categoryof defamation,are jus-
tifiedfor the reasonthatlibelandslanderconstitutefraud.Withsomeembarrassment,
though,I admitthatfor severalyearsthe anarchistlibertarianshadconvincedme that
thereshouldbe no suchlaws.The anarchistlibertarian’s argumentis as follows.Everylie,
no matterhowmaliciousanddamaging,countsas freespeech.^1 SupposethatRoycon-
coctsthe allegationthatWallyis a childrapist,andconvinceseveryonein Wally’s town
thatWallyhad committedthis crimebut had escapedprosecutionfor it. Thisleadsto the
communityshunningWallyand refusingto providehimany job. The anarchistlibertar-
ian claimsthatRoypracticedfreespeech,anddid not spoliateWallyor his private
property.The libertariananarchistsaysthat if communitymemberslet this lie affecttheir
treatmentof Wally,the faultlies not in Royfor havingcarriedout this deception,but in
the townspeoplefor havinguncriticallyswallowedit in lieu of checkingup on it. Though
acknowledgingthatRoydefraudedgulliblecommunitymemberswhootherwisemay
havehiredor marriedWally,the anarchistlibertarianproclaimsRoydid not defraud
Wallyhimself.Hence,Wallyshouldnot be ableto sue Royon the basisthat Royexercised
fraudto harmhim.
Just as he doesin othermatters,MurrayN. Rothbardheregivesthe standardanarchist
libertarianview.“Whatthe law of libeland slanderdoes,in short,is to arguea ‘property
right’ of someonein his ownreputation.Yet someone’s ‘reputation’ is not and cannotbe
‘owned’ by him,sinceit is purelya functionof the subjectivefeelingsand attitudesheld
by otherpeople.” As “no one can evertruly‘own’ the mindand attitudeof another,this
meansthat no one can literallyhavea propertyrightin his ‘reputation.’”^2 W. AlanBurris
echoes,“Slanderand libelare unethicaldirtytricks.But... thereis no forceinvolved,and
no one has a propertyrightin the opinionsof others.Therefore,it is not moralto use force
to stopslanderand libel,or to collectdamages.”^3 AndacademiceconomistWalterBlock
(b. 1941)agreesthat“a person’s reputationdoesnot ‘belong’ to him... A person’s
reputationis whatotherpeoplethinkof him;it consistsof the thoughtswhichother
peoplehave.A mandoesnot ownhis reputationany morethanhe ownsthe thoughtsof
others,” and a man’s reputationis no morethanthoseverythoughtsabouthim.“Whether
his reputationwas‘takenfromhim’ by fair meansor foul,by truthor falsehood,he did
not ownit in the first placeand hence,shouldhaveno recourseto the law for damages.”^4
Thatwholeargumentis a strawman.A mandoesnot needto holdstatutoryowner-
shipoverhis reputationin orderfor libellaw to be valid.Theissueis not thata man’s
315