NaturalLibertyRequiresAdherenceto Truth 317pertainingto inconsequentialmatters,suchas “Wallychewswithhis mouthopen.” Such
a suit will not standup in court.Likewise,trivialwhitelies,suchas Roytellinga woman
she is stunninglybeautifulwhenhe thinksher physicalappearanceis mediocreat best,
are not subjectto libellaw.Littlewhitelies are not severeenoughto influencethe wom-
an’s life in the mostadversefashion.Wallycan wina defamationlawsuitagainstRoy
solelyon the basisthatRoy’s falseallegationswereplausible,unproven,andhada har-
rowingeffecton Wally’s life that wouldnot haveoccurredhad Roynot publiclydissemi-
natedhis fabrications.
Moreimportantly,seriousformsof libeland slanderare initiationsof the use of force
for the samereasonthatthe law legitimatelyclassifiesharassmentand stalkingas forms
of spoliation.To harassand stalka womansystematicallydoesnot causeobviousphysi-
cal damageto her healthor her property,but a chronicmanifestationof this phenomenon
can seriouslydisrupther dailyroutine,undermineher earningability,and posean enor-
mousstrainon yearsof her life. Graveformsof libelandslandercan producethe same
effect.To thosewhobelievethatthe consequencesof libelare not severeenoughto
legislateagainst,I wouldinquireas to whethertheythinkthatstalkingandharassment
are no big dealeither.^6
Slanderand libelare fraudfor the samereasonthatidentitytheft—which,in legalese,
translatestounauthorizedappropriationundertortlaw^7 —is rightfullyconsideredfraud.
ImaginethatI memorizeyourSocialSecurityNumberandcrafta fakeID withwhichI
can impersonateyou.ThenI go to yourbank,pretendto be you,andwithdrawevery-
thingfromyoursavingsand checkingaccounts.Someanarchistlibertariansmayconcede
thatin this scenario,I defraudedthe bankby directlyfoolingits tellers.On thatbasis,the
libertariansmightconcedethatthe bankmayrightfullytakeactionagainstme. But an-
archistlibertariansmaystill havethe gall to add that becauseI did not directlyfool you or
directlybreachany contractI madewithyou,you yourselfshouldhaveno legalauthority
to file chargesagainstme. Thatwouldbe a ludicrousconclusion,giventhatmy defraud-
ing the bankhas obviouslycauseddemonstrablepersonalharmto you.Thesamelogic
appliesto a libeler.
ConsiderthatJuliannewouldhire—or marry—Wallyhad she knownhis truecharac-
ter. But Juliannepurchasesa newsmagazinepublishedby Roy,whichscurrilouslyim-
pugnsWallyas a pedophile.AndRoypublishesthis on the WorldWideWebas well,
presentingthe falseclaimto millionsof Websurfers.Juliannedoesnot knowwhethershe
fullybelievesthis charge,but it stirsenoughdoubtin her mindto refrainfromhiringor
marryingWally.For this samereason,no one else will hireor marryWally.Shouldit be
that mostpeoplewhohaveheardor readthe lie aboutWallyare not fullyconvincedof its
authenticity,it can still wreakhavocon Wally’s life. Again,the anarchistlibertarianmay
concedethat sincethe subscribersof Roy’s magazinesubscribedon the implicitcontractu-
al understandingthattheywerepayingfor verifiabletruthinsteadof arbitrarylies,the
subscribersweredefraudedandmaytakelegalactionagainstRoy.Indeed,considering
thatJuliannewouldhavebeenmuchlikelierto hireor marryWallyhadshe knownthe
truth,Royhaddefraudedher. But the sameanarchistlibertarianwillself-righteously
professthat,givenWally’s statusas a thirdpartywhodid not remunerateRoyfor truth-
ful information,Wallyshouldhaveno legalrecourseagainstRoy.The anarchistlibertar-
ian wouldinsistas much,despiteRoy’s lies damagingWally’s life morethantheydid the
livesof Julianneand his otherreaders.Sucha claimis ridiculousfor the samereasonthat
it wouldbe ridiculousto say that my drainingyourbankaccount,whilemasqueradingas
you,victimizesyourbankbut not you.