Are Emotions Property? Sunday, February 14, 2010
As I sat in sunny St. Augustine, Florida, and enjoyed lunch with my friends, I overheard a discussion behind me where a couple began ridiculing each other. Obviously, the ridicule was sarcastic and merely banter between two otherwise lovely people. But it made me think of all the times I, and others, have been ridiculed, with the express malicious intent of causing suffering. Surely this is not a strange phenomenon.All of us that remember grade school remember a bully shouting to the top of his lungs that someone peed his pants, or that James kissed Sally, or in some other way, using nothing other than powerful vocal chords, causing great embarrassment to the bully’s target.
From this nostalgia, I started comparing it to property rights. We define property to be:
1) The tangible objects by which we exercise control and possession. Homes, automobiles, television sets, etc.
2) The corporeal flesh of our bodies. Punching someone in the face is assault because it is a violation of property rights.
3) Wealth. Money, cash, currency, credit, liquid assets, etc.
I’m sure there are other examples and other subcategories, but these are the three I came up with on my own. My focus will be on my 2nd example of property: the person himself.
This definition of property rights explains why rape, murder, and assault are all, not only illegal, but immoral. Why do the antics of the bully, which cause great psychological harm (embarrassment, anxiety, emotional complexes) not count as violations of property rights? Surely the mind is just as much property as the body is. No one would doubt that starting a fight violates the other person’s property, but why is the bar fight with knives and broken bottles any more a violation of property rights than the husband who accuses the wife of infidelity and continues to disparage and scream, her crying all the while?
Our legal system, in extreme degrees, regards mental health as property. Psychological trauma and torture are crimes to be charged under legal statutes. They understand that acts which change the person’s mental well-being are just as dangerous as those that change the physical ones. The strongest form of torture is that of the mind, and yet there is no clear-cut way to bring that into the well-defined category of property rights.
Is there some distinction I am missing? Is there a caveat I have forgotten that makes all this unnecessary?
In the definitional sense, physical trauma is forbidden, but mental trauma is overlooked. Why?
Why are the long-lasting feelings of depression, anger, and abandonment that accompany a girl when the boy breaks up with her not violations, but a slap across the face that fades within minutes an egregious infringement of property rights? There are several instances where I would gladly trade my mental anguish for pain in my physical body.
There are two possible reasons:
1) Mental anguish was accidentally excluded.
Possibly because nobody had ever considered that psychological duress is capable of bearing far greater harm than physical pain.
2) Mental anguish was specifically excluded.
Because to incorporate mental trauma into the litany of current violations would so burden the process, so as to make fighting it impossible. How would you try and convict people of violating someone’s property rights if you insulted them in private? What is the proper remuneration for calling someone “stupid” or, in the previous instance, breaking up with a loved one?
If mental anguish was accidentally excluded, ought it to be included? And if it was deliberately excluded, ought we to change the definition of property?
[ posted by Mattheus @ 8:17 PM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]
11 Comments:
-
At Mon Feb 15, 02:48:00 PM EST,
Taylor Conant said...
-
Mattheus,
Funny you should post on this topic as I was just speaking with a friend last week whose wife insists it should be a crime to hurt someone's feelings, to put it bluntly.
The best explanation I can come up with for why it is no violation of someone's rights to emotionally assault them is this:
Say somebody calls you stupid. This hurts your feelings and you feel it is an assault on your person. However, are you stupid because they have said so?
The person's words hurt you only because you allow them to. Perhaps you are called stupid by your father and find it aggravating, whereas you are called stupid by a stranger and you have a chuckle. Is it assault in one situation, or both?
Again, I think it's neither, because the state of reality has not changed. You do not become stupid simply because someone says you are.
Compare this to a physical transgression of property rights, for example, someone punching you. Whether you agree with being punched or not, you have been punched, and the state of reality of your bodily tissues and organs has changed for the worse. The harm can only be healed with time, if that. With emotions, the healing can occur instantly or never even be necessary if one can simply shrug off the "assault".
Another item to consider: what if you are stupid, and someone tells you so... has assault still occured?
I'm sure a true philosopher/logician could shoot holes into what I've just said, it was simply the first response I could come up with for this particular issue. I invite further comments or response. -
At Mon Feb 15, 03:25:00 PM EST,
Mattheus said...
-
Taylor,
Just as you imply in the situation where a friend calls you a moron and winks, it is no violation of rights. The same is true of physical property, though. Men do this all the time - we punch each other playfully, or couples will tickle each other jokingly. These are physical "violations of property" because they infringe on your isolation.
The difference between a friend high-fiving you too hard and getting in a bar fight is your own perception of whether rights have been violated, viz. your own judgments regarding how you feel about the intrusion. In the first instance, it was a welcome greeting by a friend whereas in the second, the physical contact was very unwelcome. The violation is not objective in the act done, but by subjective valuations by each of us. After all, many people participate in wrestling and fighting for the fun of it.
Compare this to a physical transgression of property rights, for example, someone punching you. Whether you agree with being punched or not, you have been punched, and the state of reality of your bodily tissues and organs has changed for the worse. The harm can only be healed with time, if that. With emotions, the healing can occur instantly or never even be necessary if one can simply shrug off the "assault".
This is true, but as many of us are "conditioned" to not pay heed to insults (where you "shrug it off"), so too can professional fighters and bodybuilders "shrug off" physical pain. Whether I call my father a doodyhead, or try to tackle an NFL lineman, they will both laugh. Because both are silly scenarios.
To conclude, I posit that we can "shrug off" physical transgressions in the same manner as emotional transgressions. They both simply require a specific type of fortitude.
Another item to consider: what if you are stupid, and someone tells you so... has assault still occurred?
I'm not sure haha. Actually, I'm not sure about any of this. I'm just conjecturing and trying to create a discussion, in order to further distill exactly what it means to have property rights.
But let's take a more objective condition rather than something as arbitrary as "stupidity." Let's suppose I call someone mentally challenged. If, in fact, they really are mentally challenged, as evidenced by psychologists tests and so forth, I think it would not make one bit of difference to whether his rights were violated. The truth of the statement is irrelevant. The intent is to cause malice, and the success of that operation, though probably positively affected by the real truth of it, is what constitutes violation. If I call someone a retard and, whether true or false, they get angry and it alters their physical state (sweating, yelling, headache, etc), is it then a violation of property?
Maybe so. -
At Tue Feb 16, 01:04:00 PM EST,
Taylor Conant said...
-
Mattheus,
More to consider:
Would emotions be considered a new, unique form of property, or would they fall under the overarching umbrella of Intellectual Property? If new, then those differential characteristics need to be fleshed out. If they're part of IP, then I think that means they can be accepted/rejected as valid property wholesale in applying the same considerations made toward IP.
In other words, if one rejects IP, one would necessarily reject EP, whereas if one accepts IP, one would necessarily accept EP.
In my mind, EP are likely a form of IP. Furthermore, EP relates to IP in one's reputation. It would have to be one's reputation (an entity which has external -- how other's relate to it -- and internal -- how the self relates to it -- components) that is harmed/damaged by various torments that we've discussed.
To the extent that this form of property is valid, the current application of it that we can observe would probably be things like libel laws (and, when speaking about the EP of governments/states, sedition laws). Again, I bring this up because if you find libel laws to be ridiculous and injurious to the idea of personal liberty, then EP is probably tied up with it and should be examined in a similar light.
Have you run any searches at Mises or the QJAE or anything like that for anyone discussing this issue? I have a hard time believing this is entirely original and I wonder if someone else has addressed some of these questions in a more academic setting already? I'd be curious to see what your research brings up. If you can't find anything, try contacting Stephen Kinsella, he might be aware of it. -
At Tue Feb 16, 07:32:00 PM EST,
Mattheus said...
-
Taylor,
Just something quick before I research the field of "EP":
In the form of IP, there is something you "own." And idea, technique, formula, method, or some other intangible form of "property" by which you exercise ownership.
But IP seems to fall more in line with my 1st example of property - tangible goods that can be exchanged, and less to do with the 2nd - your body.
In the case of the 1st example, IP laws are merely property rights for things you own (which encompass not only cinnamon spice perhaps but a sea route to Asia). We have "physical property laws" to represent tangible goods and IP laws to represent intangible goods.
EP, on the other hand, I believe belongs to an "intangible" subcategory of the 2nd example.
Anyway, I'll take some time to research a bit into it. To my knowledge, I haven't heard of any serious scholar delving into this matter. -
At Wed Feb 17, 04:08:00 PM EST,
The Liberty Paper said...
-
Mattheus,
I’ve selected what I believe the key points in your argument and responded to them in order to elucidate the issues at stake.
All of us that remember grade school remember a bully shouting to the top of his lungs that someone peed his pants, or that James kissed Sally, or in some other way, using nothing other than powerful vocal chords, causing great embarrassment to the bully’s target.
...
Surely the mind is just as much property as the body is.
Undoubtedly the mind is just as much property as the body. In fact, the great thing about the mind is that no one can ever damage your mind; you and you alone have complete control over it. Of course there are times when you could be held against your will and as a result your mind is damaged, but the crime is holding you against your will. What’s great about your mind is that no matter how much someone insults you, your mind is yours to control at all times. Others can attempt to cause mental anguish by calling you names or claiming you did something in an attempt to embarrass you, but only you have the ability to change your state of mind.
Psychological trauma and torture are crimes to be charged under legal statutes.
It would be difficult to imagine a form of torture which does not involve a more basic violation of property rights (i.e. your being held against your will), although psychological trauma is a different story. It’s easier to imagine situations where psychological trauma occurs without a violation of property rights. I’m sure many people would say they’ve been traumatized by walking in on their spouse cheating on them, others may be traumatized by witnessing an accident where a person dies, or even watching the history channel and witnessing gruesome facts they’d never thought possible. Should the spouse be thrown in jail? Should the person who caused the car wreck be charged with manslaughter and psychologically traumatizing everyone within eyesight? Should the history channel be censored? The answer to all of these questions is of course a resounding ‘No.’ These are not crimes because the people witnessing the events need not be traumatized by the events. Some can see their spouse cheating on them and think nothing of it (maybe they’re swingers?), others may see a fatal car crash and be unfazed, and finally some may be able to watch the gruesome details of our history and be nothing but fascinated. Additionally, in every case the potentially traumatized person is taking a risk by doing something other than nothing. Had he done nothing but sat at home and stared at the wall he would have had no chance of catching his spouse cheat on him, no chance of witnessing a car wreck, and no chance of being disturbed by the history channel; he took a risk when he voluntarily left the comfort of nothingness.
Why are the long-lasting feelings of depression, anger, and abandonment that accompany a girl when the boy breaks up with her not violations, but a slap across the face that fades within minutes an egregious infringement of property rights?
Believing in emotions as property rights leads you to hold such untenable positions as the one you posit here. If staying with the girl causes the boy mental anguish, should the girl be charged with a crime? (cont.) -
At Wed Feb 17, 04:09:00 PM EST,
The Liberty Paper said...
-
(cont.)
In Your Response to Taylor
Just as you imply in the situation where a friend calls you a moron and winks, it is no violation of rights. The same is true of physical property, though. Men do this all the time - we punch each other playfully, or couples will tickle each other jokingly. These are physical "violations of property" because they infringe on your isolation.
Contact is not a property violation. Neither tickling nor punching is inherently a property rights violations. A playful punch is no more a property violation than a friend, which you’ve invited, coming over to your house. If a stranger you don’t know punches you or enters your home uninvited, that is a property rights violation as it was unwelcomed intrusion. Playful punches and visitors are welcomed by the property owner.
The difference between a friend high-fiving you too hard and getting in a bar fight is your own perception of whether rights have been violated
The difference is not perception, it’s permission. A boxer in the ring has the permission to punch his opponent as his opponent accepted the challenge and the rules of boxing when he entered the ring voluntarily, the boxing spectator does not have the permission to punch a fellow spectator as the fellow spectator has not given permission.
If I call someone a retard and, whether true or false, they get angry and it alters their physical state (sweating, yelling, headache, etc), is it then a violation of property?
No - you’re speaking about people’s reactions as if they just happen without any input from the reactor whatsoever. Reactions are neither immutable nor incorrigible; they are completely under the control of the one reacting. The word itself means to act in response to an agent or influence, not act under the control of an outside entity. I can only say that I’m glad “it” has refrained from “alter[ing] [my] physical state” thus far in life. The moment I encounter an “it” so strong that it’s able to control my “physical state” without my having any say in the matter, I will truly be terrified. I suppose, however, that an “it” which is able to control your physical state (mind control device?) would be a violation of property rights, but of course that’d be because “it” would be capable of forcing you to act against your will, which of course is a property rights violation.
-TLP -
At Wed Feb 17, 04:14:00 PM EST,
Taylor Conant said...
-
TLP,
You introduce a significant question-- were EP to be considered a property rights violation, how would one calculate damages or "fair" punishment given that the damage done is entirely subjectively calculated by the "victim"?
Interesting. -
At Wed Feb 17, 04:46:00 PM EST,
Taylor Conant said...
-
Here's a question:
Can you damage someone's EP without even doing anything? In other words, instead of doing a positive action to someone (telling them they're stupid, worthless, etc.), could you damage someone's EP by not doing something to them?
Consider a few examples:
Two individuals enter into a business negotiation. The first individual will feel proud and accomplished if the negotiation is successful. Unfortunately, at the last minute the second individual withdraws. The first individual is crushed and suffers a wave of disappointment and anger. May he sue?
A woman is interested in a man, but he never calls her back. She feels despondent that he would emotionally torment her. May she take him to court?
A child is emotionally-neglected by his parents growing up, turning to drugs and alcohol as a form of self-medication. His studies are disrupted and he ultimately becomes a drop out and a life failure. Can he prosecute his parents for not loving him? -
At Wed Feb 17, 06:05:00 PM EST,
Mattheus said...
-
This comment has been removed by the author.
-
At Wed Feb 17, 08:24:00 PM EST,
Taylor Conant said...
-
Mattheus,
To continue the discussion, please do two things:
1.) Make sure you are addressing the correct commenter in your follow-up comments
2.) Please make specific reference to what you want further comment on
Right now there seems to be a mismatch on 1, leading to confusion, and no clear indication on 2, leading to confusion. -
At Thu Feb 18, 12:36:00 AM EST,
Mattheus said...
-
TLP,
Those are very pertinent insights and, as you explain, they reveal a possible untenability with the very concept of "emotional property."
Is the entire notion null and void because it requires sufficient agreement on part of the hurt individual?
Taylor,
How would the concept hold up against your latter example? Parents that neglect their children are routinely charged under criminal statutes because the very act of "voluntarily [leaving] the comfort of nothingness," or doing nothing is regarded as detrimental to the child's health as he/she matures. There is significant proof in the field of infant psychology that gestures so. Would you blame the neglected child for turning to alcohol and drugs - the child, who as an infant had no concept or ability of controlling his reactions from the environment - or the parents?
**Edit**
Thanks for the clarification. I was reading down the list and mistakenly copied the wrong name. Apologies.
