Fraud or Freedom?

by Logan Albright

Most libertarians recognize fraud as a form of theft, and therefore a form of coercion that violates the non-aggression principle and should be subject to legal reprisal. In general, I agree. But what constitutes fraud?

The case of Kevin Trudeau has got me thinking. The famous pitchman has been convicted of fraud and sentenced to ten years in federal prison for peddling diet books that authorities deemed to be dangerous and ineffective, making unsubstantiated claims that harmed his customers.

While Trudeau is undoubtedly a liar and a huckster, this seems to me to me to be a dangerous grey area in the nature of fraud. If selling weight loss books that don't work is fraud, then an entire industry could presumably be thrown in jail at any moment. Is every book that preaches Chinese medicine, acupuncture, homeopathy, and special crash diets a fraud? The entire self-help industry is built on these kinds of promises. The Secret sold millions of copies by claiming you can get what you want out of life just by wishing for it. Books of ghost sightings and recipes for magic spells can be found in the new age section of any book store.

I would argue that it is the responsibility of the individual consumer to decide which of these books are fact and which are fiction. If you want to follow the advice of a book on a dubious topic, you should assume responsibility for your actions, not blame the author. Would a fraud charge stick against the author of crypotzoologic monster hunting guide (of which there are many) if someone injured themselves following his advice? For the sake of enthusiastic monster hunters everywhere, I would like to hope not.

Then there are books about climate change. Chris Horner's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" was a great and informative read, but what would happen if he were brought to court over his claims? If the scientific and political establishment had their way, he would be convicted of fraud. We have already seen threats of lawsuits against Mark Steyn for his "climate change denial" and demands for the silencing of Charles Krauthammer for daring to question climate change orthodoxy.

Lying is not per se illegal, and neither is the expression of a sincerely held opinion. Where is the line between opinion and fraud? Who decides what is a lie and what is a mistake, and isn't the difference mainly down to the consensus of experts? This seems to me a very dangerous precedent.

If I am selling cyanide capsules marketed as Flintstones Chewable Vitamins, that is demonstrably fraud. If I sell a book that expresses a belief that Flintstones Chewable Vitamins may have harmful effects in the long run, that should should not be. Fraud is traditionally defined as the misrepresentation of what a product is or does. In the case of books, they only thing they do is provide information. That information may or may not be true, but there is a distinct difference between selling a product whose use will result in injury, and a book whose "use" merely constitutes reading it. We have to make sure to protect unpopular opinions that may go against the establishment dogma.

Should Kevin Trudeau be in prison? I don't know, but I am nervous about a society where you can be imprisoned for writing and selling a book.
_
Logan Albright is a writer and economist in Washington, DC.





Latest Commentary
- If You Vote or Don't Vote Complain
- How Far Can the P2P Revolution Go?
- The Index Card of Allowable Opinion
- Should Government Have the Power to Quarantine?
- Obama Appointee Supports Individual Rights
- Let the Market Contain Ebola
- The State as a Royal Scam
- Glenn Greenwald TED Talk: Why Privacy Matters









Comments Add Comment Page 1 of 1
Nickel's 2bits

Posted: Mar 20 2014, 8:55 PM

Link
7147 It's such an interesting statement: "I would argue that it is the responsibility of the individual consumer to decide which of these books are fact and which are fiction."

I think it would be more useful if he could give practical examples of how to do that. For example, he might suggest that: If you buy the book, follow its recommendations and die, then it was a bad book.

(Or, wait, maybe your death was just a fluke: We should try again with someone else...)

The real problem is that anyone can write a book, huckster or expert. There's no practical way for most people to tell the difference.

Take the subject of childhood vaccination (for which I see two articles here today). "Vaccine denial" began with Andrew Wakefield, who was partner with a lawyer who wanted someone to sue. Andrew Wakefield had a huge profit motive: Therefore he's a huckster.

But wait: Companies that sell vaccines have a profit motive, too. They're hucksters, too.

How can you possibly tell the difference, when everyone has a profit motive? I think you should both vaccinate and not vaccinate; that's the only way to be sure who the huckster really is. But, gee, that's not really practical...

How about this: You can skip the vaccines on your kid. If your kid catches the measles and dies, then you should have vaccinated. Easy as that.

Damn, but a dead kid (or a dead you) is a hard way to find out that a book is written by a huckster. We need experts to tell us which is which...and we have those, but we don't believe them either.

Humanity should just go back to the caves. We don't have any use for these brains anyway.


Add Comment
Name
Comment

* No HTML


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below
 

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy