Resolved: Blackmail Should Be Legalized

Thank you for this debate. I shall begin with my case and then, if I have time, I will move on to my opponent's case. If I do not have time, I will address their case next round. Before I begin my case, it is necessary to identify the three kinds of economic exchanges/coercions. 1. Criminal Coercion Example: give me money or I will kill your dog. As we can see, this offer links coerced choice with an impermissible threat. You have a right to both your money and your dog. I am asking you to give up one of these things which you have a right to. The impermissible threat should be quite obvious; I have no right to threaten to kill your dog. 2. Legal Economic Exchange Example: Give me money or I, as a storekeeper, will keep this new set of golf clubs. This links a legitimate choice with a permissible threat. I have a right to my golf clubs; you have a right to your money. You (or I) is proposing to exchange these rights. The permissible threat is I have a right to threaten to withhold the golf clubs from you. I own them. 3. Blackmail Example: Give me money or I will expose your secret. Here is where it gets really interesting. Blackmail links a coerced choice and a permissible threat together. The choice is you have a right to both your money and your secret. I have a right to threaten to expose this secret. Note: In the case of blackmail there is an asymmetry of rights not found in either case 1 or 2. In the case of criminal coercion, the victim has all the rights and the coercer has no rights. In the legitimate economic exchange, each party has one right and they exchange them. In the case of blackmail, it is a little more tricky, the victim has two rights (their money and their secret) and the blackmailer has one right. But, the blackmailers one right is one of the things the victim has a right to (information, the secret). Because of this, the blackmailer is effectively forcing the victim to choose between one of their two rights (their money or their secret) or suffer consequences. In sum, blackmail is neither a legal economic exchange nor is it criminal coercion. It is in a class of its own. As such, it is my burden to prove it is in society's best interest to prohibit coerced choices. It is my opponent's burden to prove it is not in society's best interest to prohibit coerced choices. My opponent is obviously going to attack the premise that a person has a right to their own information. They are going to claim information about oneself is no right. In order to uphold my case, I must successfully show that the victim has a right (even if a non-exclusive, passive right) to his or her information. In the words of Joel Feinberg the right "to keep one's affairs secret, or one's reputation undamaged" is a passive right or something which is "not to be done to by others" (1). I am not arguing the victim has an exclusive right to their information, no, I am merely arguing they have a passive right to their information. The victim has a right to information about oneself only because other's have a duty not to interfere with the victim's right. Now guess what? Both the blackmailer and the victim have a passive right to this information (that is if we assume the blackmailer got the information through legal means). But, without the blackmailer, the victim has the sole passive right to the information about his/her self. Now, with the blackmailer on scene, the victim still has their original passive right to the information, but, the blackmailer has effectively given themselves this passive right as well. By their offer, the blackmailer effectively forces the person to choose between two rights which were and are originally theirs. The victim has a right to their money and the victim had the sole passive right to their information. The blackmailer is offering the victim to re-buy his/her right to the information. Why should this be permissible? Now for a Rawlsian Argument. If we accept the distinction between a legitimate and a coerced offer, then I can give a Rawlsian argument as to why blackmail should be illegal. (2) A rational, self-interested person would choose to prohibit blackmail simply because they do not want to be subjected to coercive offers. Can my opponent rationally tell us she wants to be coerced into giving me money? With Rawl's original position in mind (2) then we now have a choice between the following two scenarios. If a coercive offer is legal, then, I have the right to constantly force other people into coerced situations, just as other people have the right to constantly force me into coerced situations. If coercive offers are illegal, then, I do not have the right to force others into coerced situations, but, other people do not have the right to force me into coerced situations. Assuming a person would prefer to be safe rather than sorry, and then we are now in a state where it is better off that blackmail is illegal; a state where none of us can blackmail rather than all of us. By illegalizing the coercive aspect of blackmail, we are effectively illegalizing blackmail. Part of blackmail is coercion. Furthermore, would we not want to illegalize coercion (thus, illegalizing blackmail) for the same reason we want to eliminate unfair trade practices? Since we live in a largely capitalistic society (no I do not want to turn this into a debate over the merits of capitalism versus communism), it is to societies advantage to eliminate coercion. If an offeror builds a coerced choice into a contract, then the ability to contract freely is limited. It is justified to eliminate coercive offers (not solely because of self-protection) but, because we are members of a capitalistic society it would be in societies best interest to protect the ability to contract freely. Blackmail is a coercive offer. It creates a coerced choice for the victim, even if the threat is permissible. Now to move on to my opponent's case. Contention 1. Actions are legal should lead to blackmail being legal. This argument commits the fallacy of composition where my opponent is inferring that "something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)." (3) They say that because the actions which make up blackmail are legal, blackmail should be legal. Contention 2. Greater protection This creates disjointed contracts. If blackmail is legalized, then everyone has the right to use blackmail. Since we hold this true, what perfect person whom no one has any information on, will be able to draft such a contract without any bias at all. How is my opponent going to determine whether one of the parties has information on the person whom is drafting the contract to blackmail them? Who will create their contract? This proposition is entirely illogical as it suggests there is an infinite amount of people whom can create these contracts. Without an infinite amount of people to create contracts between blackmailer and the blackmailed, you cannot definitively provide total protection for all people. There will always be someone who is screwed in the end. It is also illogical to think either of the parties can draft the contract suggested as there will definitely be bias in that case. Sources: 1. J. FEINBERG, SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY page: 60 (1973). 2. J. RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE (1971). 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...