4 ms·

There is also an assumption in the paper that the information would be released without the blackmail, and that blackmail is just a commercial-option to 'stop'

by Closi 3y ago

There is also an assumption in the paper that the information would be released without the blackmail, and that blackmail is just a commercial-option to 'stop' the information release for the benefit of both parties. This is wrong for at least two reasons: 1. The information may not have been released because the secret-holder did not have an incentive to release it, however in a 'blackmail-legal' world there is now a new incentive to threaten to release the information. 2. If blackmail is illegal, it also incentivises others to go and find secrets that they can then exploit for money/sex/other. Paper even resorts to effectively calling Sam a facist at one point because he is against the free market(!). I think the below excerpt of the paper sums up the papers (radical) free-market views: > Altman asserts that "charging poison victims who face imminent death more for medication than one would charge less desperate purchasers of the same drug exploits their hardships." [however] he doesn't seem to realize that those societies which allow free enterprise [...] are far more likely to have medicines that will save lives than ones which embrace socialism, regulationism, interventionism and [which represent] the fascist model favored by Altman. I didn't know the idea that you shouldn't charge someone who is poisoned more for antidote was considered fascist or even particularly socialist!

OscarCunningham 3y ago
Do you think that for the same reasons 1 and 2 it should also be illegal in other cases to offer not to do something in exchange for money?
- Closi 3y ago
  Can you give a specific example?
  - OscarCunningham 3y ago
    You gave a nice view from your house. I own the land next to your house and tell you I will build a new house blocking your view unless you pay me not to do that.
    - Closi 3y ago
      This scenario should probably be legal - the stakes aren’t there for me to consider it similar to blackmail. It depends a bit on intent though - if the purpose of building the house is just to extort the other landowner of money, and it would make a meaningful difference to their house value, it starts to get a lot more grey to me. There are a whole string of scenarios between “not blackmail”, to “probably not blackmail” to “definitely blackmail” depending on the scenario. A bit like how with assault if you poked someone that is probably fine, but that doesn’t make punching someone in the face ok (but what is a punch if not a bigger poke?).
roenxi 3y ago
That is weird. Also, the hypothetical doesn't really make economic sense. We're all around 24-48 hours from death if we don't eat and drink, and yet the market has no ability whatsoever to exploit that fact because competition is too powerful. An antidote-seller (chemist) who was known for charging more when you needed medicine would get wrecked in the market competing with a chemist who just sold stuff to whoever at a known price. Not to mention that anyone could buy from the chemist in the good times and set up shop just outside selling at stable prices arbitraging the scheme away. A key reason of why free markets are practical is that it isn't effective to try and segment market based on consumers' raw need. The product needs to be genuinely different for that strategy to have a chance (eg, an expedited service - which is probably going to justify extra cost to someone dying of poison).
- Closi 3y ago
  Well, I guess two things: 1. Sam's point is that if you are going for a poison-antidote, you probably don't have time to shop around and will go anywhere because you are price inelastic at that point. It's not a real scenario, but in that situation of course we shouldn't allow pharmacists to just charge whatever they think they can get away with to extort the most money from someone who is dying of a poison. Is this point really up for debate, or are we really saying that should be allowed behaviour? 2. It wouldn't be facism regardless.

by Closi 3y ago

OscarCunningham 3y ago

Do you think that for the same reasons 1 and 2 it should also be illegal in other cases to offer not to do something in exchange for money?

Closi 3y ago
Can you give a specific example?
- OscarCunningham 3y ago
  You gave a nice view from your house. I own the land next to your house and tell you I will build a new house blocking your view unless you pay me not to do that.
  - Closi 3y ago
    This scenario should probably be legal - the stakes aren’t there for me to consider it similar to blackmail. It depends a bit on intent though - if the purpose of building the house is just to extort the other landowner of money, and it would make a meaningful difference to their house value, it starts to get a lot more grey to me. There are a whole string of scenarios between “not blackmail”, to “probably not blackmail” to “definitely blackmail” depending on the scenario. A bit like how with assault if you poked someone that is probably fine, but that doesn’t make punching someone in the face ok (but what is a punch if not a bigger poke?).

roenxi 3y ago

That is weird. Also, the hypothetical doesn't really make economic sense. We're all around 24-48 hours from death if we don't eat and drink, and yet the market has no ability whatsoever to exploit that fact because competition is too powerful. An antidote-seller (chemist) who was known for charging more when you needed medicine would get wrecked in the market competing with a chemist who just sold stuff to whoever at a known price. Not to mention that anyone could buy from the chemist in the good times and set up shop just outside selling at stable prices arbitraging the scheme away. A key reason of why free markets are practical is that it isn't effective to try and segment market based on consumers' raw need. The product needs to be genuinely different for that strategy to have a chance (eg, an expedited service - which is probably going to justify extra cost to someone dying of poison).

Closi 3y ago
Well, I guess two things: 1. Sam's point is that if you are going for a poison-antidote, you probably don't have time to shop around and will go anywhere because you are price inelastic at that point. It's not a real scenario, but in that situation of course we shouldn't allow pharmacists to just charge whatever they think they can get away with to extort the most money from someone who is dying of a poison. Is this point really up for debate, or are we really saying that should be allowed behaviour? 2. It wouldn't be facism regardless.