$5000 pet rock -- amazing e-mail

Recently I posted here about the Wexford/Palmers Green/Glencullen mill:

> OK, they've shut down their US Websites; now can we shut down their Israeli Website?
> http://www.connect.co.il/degree/

I got the following e-mail from the proprietor of that Website.
(I did not e-mail him; he either is lurking on this board, or
found my reference with some search tool.)

Any idea what the best way is to persuade this friendly-sounding
person that he is doing a wrong thing?

-- Mark I.

| I suppose your name is Mark. Just so you can get the
| story straight www.connect.co.il/degree is not a site
| of the diploma mill. I advertise to get them leads,
| but have nothing to do with selling degrees what so
| ever. You uwould think that the people who buy these
| fake diplomas are the problem they are doing something
| on the illegal side. I'm not an attorney, but they do
| say up front that these are NON ACCREDITED DEGREES. If
| somebody wanted to sell you a pet rock for $5000 and
| you bought it, that would be your problem. My
| particular company is a marketing company which is in
| the process of legally being set up in the USA as a
| corporation
|
| If you would like to discuss this further, I would be
| more than happy

 

Mark: "Any idea what the best way is to persuade this friendly-sounding person that he is doing a wrong thing?"

Rich: Doubtful. It is very likely said person already knows it is wrong. Telling him what he already knows isn't likely to change his behavior. Why bother?

Whenever I'm faced with such matters, I ask myself, "Will what I do get the other person to do what I want?" If no, then I don't do it.

Trying to dissuade people like that from engaging in such practices with rhetoric is futile.

 

I´d like more details on that rock.

 

From Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll:

# "That's very important," the King said, turning to the jury.
# They were just beginning to write this down on their slates,
# when the White Rabbit interrupted: "Unimportant,
# your Majesty means, of course," he said in a very respectful
# tone, but frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.
#
# "Unimportant, of course, I meant," the King hastily said,
# and went on to himself in an undertone, "important --
# unimportant -- unimportant -- important --" as if he were
# trying which word sounded best.

I can't help imagining the King of Hearts reading the spam with the words "Diplomas from prestigious non-accredited universities", and muttering to himself, "Accredited -- non-accredited -- accredited -- non-accredited --" as if trying which word sounded better.

 

I agree whole heartedly with Mark. What this guy is doing is wrong and causes a lot of problems. He should be stopped. In a like situation there is another product frequently used in DL, whose producers and sellers of computers should be shut down because some people buy them and use them for making people believe that they are someone who they are not, viewing kiddie porn, illegally hacking into other computers, spreading hate messages, etc...they are known as computers. Then there are also baseball bats that are supposed to be used for an entertaining game but some use them as weapons...the producers should be shut down...how can we show these misinformed people that what they are doing is wrong? So here, here. I am in agreement.

 

Computers and baseball bats serve good purposes as well.

What is the good purpose of a fake diploma? As a "novelty item"? Does this mean it's also OK to counterfeit money (or a passport, or a driver's licence; you name it), provided you sell your counterfeit as a "novelty item"?

 

So continuing with logic it is ok for others to tell you what you can and cannot do with your own personal property; and if one chooses to find utility in novelty items then that is their decision, not yours or any others. Once anyone other than the owner is able to control, in any manner, the use of one's property than it is no longer their property but then belongs to those who are able to enforce the prescribed usage. Further, you are assuming to have all the answers to the utility of said product meaning that that product has absolutely no possibility of being utilized in some other manner for another purpose from this point to eternity. I would not be so bold to assert such an implication. You logic also implies that the gov't has a role in higher education where it initially had nothing to do with it, it was actually brought about through religion. the first universities were affiliated with various religious sects. So before you want to control something question whether you would like me to be able to tell you what you can and cannot purchase (good or bad), how you may use it (here and in the future), how much you must pay for it (a little or a lot). My guess is that you would not like me to run your life as I would not like you to run mine so how is it then that you can apply that to other whom you have no knowledge of?

 

wine brick

There was a product called a "wine brick" (made from compressed grapes) that was sold during Prohibition. The label read:

"Warning: Do not place this wine brick in a one gallon crock, add sugar and water, cover and let stand for seven days, or else an illegal alcoholic beverage will result."

 

There is a piece of paper on my desk. It's illegal for me to write death threats on it. It's illegal for me to jot down classified information and mail it to Saddam. It's illegal for me to wad it up in a ball and shove it down someone's throat. So I guess I don't really own that piece of paper.

 

I liked that one also Mark...that is an example to show that you legislation cannot altogether stop all human actions especially when the law is ridiculous such a prohibition. You need to further clarify why this example does or does not prove your point. It does prove though that you obviously believe in the Rousseau-ian or Hobbsian need for government. Reference John Locke, Hume, Smith, Friedman, Hayek, et al for help on this.

As for....
"There is a piece of paper on my desk. It's illegal for me to write death threats on it. It's illegal for me to jot down classified information and mail it to Saddam. It's illegal for me to wad it up in a ball and shove it down someone's throat. So I guess I don't really own that piece of paper."

You need to look more abstractly into what was presented. First, Writing death threats on a piece of paper is not wrong so long as it is not presented to anyone because it is the threat and not the paper that is illegal. As with the information, the information is the object of interest not the paper. Further, it is the action of forcing something (anything) down another's throat that is illegal , not the paper. Secondly, you are confusing positive with negatives. It is the positive legislative actions that are the topic of thread, natural rights already address what cannot be done wihtout violating one's rights. Negative rights would say that it is ok to do what you will with the paper except if it violates the rights of others natural rights (rights not legislated laws). so your example obviously violates the rights of others and therefore are not an appropriate example.

 

I have a fake diploma from ebay on my wall in my office at work. Yes, it's a novelty item. A conversation opener. Nobody has ever thought that it's a real diploma.

I also think it's OK to have fake money or fake driver's licence, provided these do not purport to be issued by a real country or state.

 

Further e-mail from this person:

| I will have to tell your group one more time that I do not sell
| fake diplomas. I sell the leads to diploma mills. I DONT SELL the
| diplomas. You guys are sitting there judging me as if I were a
| criminal. Im a father who has seven children trying to put food
| on my table. What gives you guys the right to judge me as if I
| were a criminal? What gives you the right to tell people whats
| right and wrong. To tell you the truth I dont feel the best in
| doing this, but its not illegal doing what Im doing. Does your
| group what to support my family? There is freedom of speech
| and I know you have the right to discuss these issues.....but to
| do harm and physicly try and go after me. I would challenge
| anyone of you in court and have recorded all your email
| addresses. Doesn't that make you feel violated. I don't spam
| anyone and I would never do any harm to anyone. I hate being
| discussed as if I were a criminal.

I will reply, since nobody else will:

| I will have to tell your group one more time that I do not sell
| fake diplomas. I sell the leads to diploma mills. I DONT SELL the
| diplomas.

You buy your Web space from an ISP, yes? And then you re-sell one page on that Web to the mill as "advertising space". I think it's fair to call that page the mill's Web page: thereby, the mill still has a presence on the Web.

| You guys are sitting there judging me as if I were a criminal.

You are not. Even the owners of the mill have not been convicted of a crime. A civil court did, however, shut down all their other Websites and relieve them of six million dollars.

| My particular company is a marketing company which is in the
| process of legally being set up in the USA as a corporation.

I'm not a lawyer; but giving a Web presence to people whom a court explicitly deprived of a Web presence could conceivably be detrimental to your interests in the US.

| You would think that the people who buy these fake diplomas
| are the problem they are doing something on the illegal side.

Few of them have been convicted of crimes, either. (I actually don't know of anybody who's been convicted for using a diploma from this particular mill; but then, I don't know much. John Davy was convicted for using degrees from cooldegree.com.) If customers are paying US$1400 when they could get a similar diploma elsewhere for one tenth the price, there must be a lot of self-deception or outright ignorance involved.

If something is a crime, then "aiding and abetting" it is generally also a crime. We have to make reasonable judgements as to intent. If you sold counterfeit money (or sold advertising space knowing it was for counterfeit money), then an easily-removable sticker on the counterfeit money saying "for novelty purposes only" would not protect you.

| If somebody wanted to sell you a pet rock for $5000 and
| you bought it, that would be your problem.

Specifically, that is true; but it is not a universal principle. If you offer me a loan at 100% interest and I accept, that is not only my problem: in most jurisdictions, merely offering such a loan would be enough to convict you of "loan-sharking".

| Im a father who has seven children trying to put food
| on my table.

Being deeply in debt myself, I sympathize. I suppose, though, that how many children you have was at least partly your choice. Many of the mill's customers may be financially worse off than you are.

| I would challenge anyone of you in court and have recorded all
| your email addresses. Doesn't that make you feel violated.

Not really -- my e-mail address is in zillions of places on the Web. I don't think I've libelled or slandered you. What were you planning to sue me for?

 

I have no problem with this reply since you are not proposing infringement on this person's rights (natural, not positive). There werem however, 3 areas which I would never use in the debate. The implied reference to property rights (web space), Intent, and "loan sharking".

Property rights-Words cannot be owned (there is no natural exclusionary principle, only positive legislation, which is not by definition correct), they are not tangible whereas the webspaces can be, there is a natural exclusionary principle.

Intent-intent cannot be proven because it is impossible to indisputably know exactly what another human is thinking. And if his intent was to do good and it continuously caused death, let's say, does that let him off the hook?

Loan-sharking- aka usuary laws, these have been disproved economically for centuries. Is it that loan sharks put a gun to one's head and forces him to take the money? no, it is done voluntarilly...aka a voluntary exchange of goods/services. Economic theory has long shown that voluntary actions tend, if not alway, to be undertaken only becuase the both exchanging parties view themselves as being better off for having undertaken the exchange than for not undertaking it.

so as long as you are not trying to force your views on another through direct violence or indirect violence (government or legislation) I am all for the exchange of ideas. knock yourself out, it might actually get this guy to pursue a better job.