A Christian libertarian examination of blackmail
Joe Carter asks an intriguing question: “Should Christian libertarians defend blackmail?” Since Joe threatens me with blackmail if I don’t answer, I might as well comply. As an outspoken advocate of Christian libertarianism, I’ve previously offered this as a central tenet to the ideology:
At the root of Christian libertarianism is the biblical conviction that God grants men the freedom (never the permission) to sin.
That does not mean the state should always grant men the freedom to sin, particularly when the sin harms others. But it does mean that as a default rule, the responsiblity in addressing sin should lie with the church and community, not the state. This seems to be not only a biblical approach, but also one that maximizes spiritual growth.
Applying this philosophy to blackmail, we see that the sin tends to harm someone else, namely the person being blackmailed. When Joe threatens to “post some of [my] dirty little secrets” unless I reply, it forces me to consider and write about the subject when I should be putting the finishing touches on my law review article. Therefore I’m a victim of Joe’s blackmail and suffer harm. Prof. Walter Block responds to this assertion by suggesting I’m not really a victim:
On one account, a victim is anyone who is damaged or harmed by some event: there are earthquake victims and victims of disease. Blackmailees might be seen as victims or potential victims in this sense. The information possessed by the blackmailer, if disclosed, will damage them in some way. And one might argue that if one kind of damage has been averted it has been averted only at a cost, and – at a stretch – that one is a “victim” of circumstances that have a cost.
But the term “victim” may also be used in a more restricted sense – as when we speak of someone being victimized. Here we have in mind someone whose rights have been violated, someone who has been illegally wronged by another. Is the person who is blackmailed a “victim” in this second sense? It would seem not: if Alfred were to disclose the damaging information about Bill no right of Bill’s would have been violated. That he should refrain from doing what he had a right to do in exchange for some monetary consideration does not change the matter.
Prof. Block’s definition of “victim,” then, seems to hinge on an infringement of rights. But is not Joe’s blackmail in the instant case forcing me into labor? Any reasonable person would conclude that forced labor, or slavery, is an infringement of rights. Moreover, one might argue it is in some ways an infringement of the right to privacy (Block offers a response to this under “Blackmail and Privacy,” essentially restricting the scenario to lawfully obtained information.)
I am of course using a silly example, and I know that Joe was only “Joshing” in threatening blackmail. But let us up the ante to help make my point more clear. Suppose that Joe threatens to release “compromising photos” of me naked to the blogosphere at large unless I fly to Chicago to renovate his new home. Technically I’m still free to ignore the demands, but the costs of doing so are enormous. It would release Joe to infringe on my right to privacy and my right to be free from forced labor.
Some may argue that “forced labor” is only forced if it’s at gunpoint, but such a definition is contrary to the one used prior to the Civil War. And at any rate, there is still an infringement on the right to privacy. The government should grant men the freedom (though the church should withhold permission) to sin so long as the sin does not unduly harm others. In most cases, blackmail does harm others and typically does so at the expense of the victim’s rights. Therefore no, Christian libertarians should not defend blackmail.
Update: John Coleman and Vox Popoli offer their take.
12 Responses to “A Christian libertarian examination of blackmail”
And, if blackmail were legal, you’d have lots of folks setting people up for compromising positions. I could be going along on my innocent way traveling on business, there’s a knock at the door, I get an intimate kiss from a female stranger and then a cohort blackmailer snaps a picture and threatens to send it to my family. Now the kiss alone would either be a minor assault or no crime at all. Is there any way for the law to distinguish between naturally occuring events and events that are staged? And even if the law could distinguish, could a jury?
Is blackmail always wrong?
Joe Carter wants us libertarians and classical liberals to respond to that one. The obvious short answer is that it entirely depends on the situation because blackmail itself is an activity that covers a variety of situations and means of…
Blackmail is a crime because it is merely a non-physical form of coercion. It is still coercion.
Just as threatening to beat up someone IF they don’t do as you say is wrong, so to is threating them emotional or social loss. Note that this can go too far, of course — Is “forcing someone to work for their food” blackmail? No. The essential difference has to do with motivation and mutual exchange.
The blackmailer gives nothing in return which is his to give.
The employer is giving up that which is his right to give up in return for the labors and results thereof of the employee.
It is not the dissemination which is the crime, it’s the threat.
Victimless? Don’t be ridiculous. The one being coerced is a clear victim.
They may (or may not have) done something wrong (not all exposure is for something wrong, but for things “socially unacceptable”), but that is between them and God (and perhaps a matter for the State to deal with under its limited protection-of-others power).
For example: Was it wrong to be a Jew in Nazi Germany? It was certainly something one might be blackmailed for. It doesn’t really even have to be something a rational society would agree is wrong.
Joel’s comments above also offer an example of how lack-of-blackmail laws might impinge on innocent individuals.
Well clearly from my post I don’t think blackmail is victimless either, but I don’t think it’s as clear as you let on. Block makes an interesting argument that it isn’t.
Libertarian Politics and Biblical Blackmail
Joe Carter, erstwhile champion of moderately intrusive moral states, has used his pictures of the now-infamous Christian libertarian Cancun chicken wrangling fiasco to blackmail Vox Day, Josh Clayborn, and myself into proffering a moral and political d…
Even if there is a philosophical argument that blackmail is victimless, I think one would see a deterioration in society at large if it were legal. Does it have to be proved that any one specific individual would be harmed or would it be enough to prove that if blackmail is legal the community partially but significantly disintegrates?
This allows me to also share one of my complaints that some conservative evangelicals emphasize personal holiness almost alone over social holiness and that far too many Christian progressives emphasize only social holiness.
I admit that I have never before encountered the notion of “Christian libertarianism.” Seems like an internally-conflicted theory.
For example, you offer victims’ “rights” and harm to the victim as alternate justifications for anti-blackmail laws. Which is it? Does the victim have rights, which must, by definition, be derived from a pre-existing moral and legal order, or is it merely the felicific calculus that counts?
Libertarians and Blackmail
Joe Carter and Josh Claybourn are discussing whether a political libertarian should seek to remove laws against blackmail. The arguments are fairly straightforward, but I think both are fallacious. First is what you might call the combinatorial argumen…
blackmail only works against those who are ashamed of what they did.
Actually, blackmail often works against those who haven’t done anything wrong just because the “victim” can’t afford to have reputation hurt or business lost.
Many frivolous lawsuits are a form of legalized blackmail, which is why I support some manner of tort reform.
Christian Carnival LXI
The 61st Christian Carnival is at ChristWeb. My contribution is The Moral Value of Meanings of Words. I’ve already discussed the posts at Evangelical Outpost and In the Agora on whether libertarians should oppose laws against blackmail. I’ve also comme…
I’ve been imposing upon Jeremy Pierce(Parableman) about this question, trying to get a handle on it.
You say
“At the root of Christian libertarianism is the biblical conviction that God grants men the freedom (never the permission) to sin.”
but what is the God-given responsibility of government in Christian Libertarianism? It seems that the philosophy is ignoring the injunctions to authority and the example given in the Mosaic Law that God has a purpose for government as well as granting men freedom of choice. There is balance in the system.
Is it not out of balance to suggest that only a personal religious conviction should govern men?
Is the Christian answer to the “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” a collective sigh of relief that “nothing” is owed?
I think some of the idea “it does mean that as a default rule, the responsiblity in addressing sin should lie with the church and community, not the state. This seems to be not only a biblical approach, but also one that maximizes spiritual growth.” is unrealistic and naive. Candide, indeed.
what about our present situation where Church is increasingly resented, targeted for lawsuits, and communities are held subject to a vociferous protest outside themselves and their consituents?
ajmac’s point is well-taken, I think ( but I,too, am unfamiliar with “Christian Libertariianism”)