I think libertarianism implicitly assumes a high-trust society where fraud either doesn’t exist at massive scale or isn’t tolerated at all. There are offshoots that don’t seem to lean towards that, but they’re much less popular outside of D.C. think tanks. There are countless takes on legal system reform, so neither of us can pose that one of them represents the “libertarian position”.
I think the most elegant solution, here, is to say that fraud represents a form of violence, in the same way that taking something important that belongs to someone else and then sprinting off with it represents a form of violence. This is grey and ambiguous, but the same critiques apply to the NAP even in ideal scenarios—“violence” is not a fundamental physical law that can be quantified and thresholded, and treating it as such makes countless ‘not touching you’ behaviors possible, which libertarians want to avoid.
Again, difficult for me to group-steelman a term that encompasses hundreds of mutually-opposed camps, but I think “What happens if you defraud someone is the same thing that happens if you steal from them” is a reasonable solution to what you’re asking.
I think the most elegant solution, here, is to say that fraud represents a form of violence, in the same way that taking something important that belongs to someone else and then sprinting off with it represents a form of violence.
FYI, this has already been said by relevant thought leaders. Rand calls fraud “indirect use of [physical] force” and a “[violent] crime”. Mises calls fraud a form of “aggression” and views it as one of the main things to protect the free market against. Fraud is often explicitly prohibited by the NAP.
The Virtue of Selfishness, ch. 14, The Nature of Government, by Ayn Rand:
A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises. Extortion is another variant of an indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values, not in exchange for values, but by the threat of force, violence or injury.
Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution in “Political” Crimes, by Ayn Rand:
A crime is a violation of the right(s) of other men by force (or fraud). It is only the initiation of physical force against others—i.e., the recourse to violence—that can be classified as a crime in a free society (as distinguished from a civil wrong).
Human Action: A Treatise on Economics by Ludwig von Mises:
Beyond the sphere of private property and the market lies the sphere of compulsion and coercion; here are the dams which organized society has built for the protection of private property and the market against violence, malice, and fraud.
Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis by Ludwig von Mises:
Men must choose between the market economy and socialism. The state can preserve the market economy in protecting life, health and private property against violent or fraudulent aggression; [...]
I’ve talked with many people who do consider fraud a type of aggression, indirect physical violence or initiation of force, but who still generally don’t apply that to companies like Amazon or Wells Fargo.
I think libertarianism implicitly assumes a high-trust society where fraud either doesn’t exist at massive scale or isn’t tolerated at all. There are offshoots that don’t seem to lean towards that, but they’re much less popular outside of D.C. think tanks. There are countless takes on legal system reform, so neither of us can pose that one of them represents the “libertarian position”.
I think the most elegant solution, here, is to say that fraud represents a form of violence, in the same way that taking something important that belongs to someone else and then sprinting off with it represents a form of violence. This is grey and ambiguous, but the same critiques apply to the NAP even in ideal scenarios—“violence” is not a fundamental physical law that can be quantified and thresholded, and treating it as such makes countless ‘not touching you’ behaviors possible, which libertarians want to avoid.
Again, difficult for me to group-steelman a term that encompasses hundreds of mutually-opposed camps, but I think “What happens if you defraud someone is the same thing that happens if you steal from them” is a reasonable solution to what you’re asking.
FYI, this has already been said by relevant thought leaders. Rand calls fraud “indirect use of [physical] force” and a “[violent] crime”. Mises calls fraud a form of “aggression” and views it as one of the main things to protect the free market against. Fraud is often explicitly prohibited by the NAP.
The Virtue of Selfishness, ch. 14, The Nature of Government, by Ayn Rand:
Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution in “Political” Crimes, by Ayn Rand:
Human Action: A Treatise on Economics by Ludwig von Mises:
Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis by Ludwig von Mises:
I’ve talked with many people who do consider fraud a type of aggression, indirect physical violence or initiation of force, but who still generally don’t apply that to companies like Amazon or Wells Fargo.