Francisco Ferrer

Lost me. Which "founding document"? -- the U.S. Constitution as duly amended 27 times? Supreme Court case law? You know, the one that says something about the right to keep and bear arms. How does the 2nd Amendment pertain to taxation? I wrote, "I'm always surprised that some people think that the institution that is best able to guard against force and fraud is the one that ignores the safeguards of its own founding document and is financed by robbery." To guard their freedoms, many people place their trust in the very institution that is the greatest violator of rights, specifically to keep what they have peacefully acquired and to bear arms in the defense of those acquisitions.

I have an unallocated certificate from the Perth Mint, denominated in ounces, a claim (one among many thousands) against their gold ore and refining inventory. For a very reasonable fee, I can ask them to convert it to coin, which I've done in the past with other Perth Mint certificates. However, it is not dead certain that they can convert all outstanding certificates during the small week, month, or year. It depends on how much gold they have on hand. This limitation does not deter people like me from buying Perth Mint certificates. They aren't assignable to anyone else. Banks won't take it as collateral, and my investment amounts to a bet that Perth Mint will continue to redeem my gold certificates when I ask them to. Same thing with bank deposits, stocks, bonds, mortgages, paper money -- you name it. There are no risk-free securities of any kind. You'd think that this would be obvious, but it's amazing what people can make themselves believe when they put their minds to it. I promise to get a cake to someone who orders and on the way to delivering it I'm robbed of it. Doesn't that make me guilty of fraud? No, of course not. I'd be no more guilty of fraud than I'd be of being a coconspirator to commit robbery. A certificate that entitles the bearer to receive a certain number of ounces of gold in a bank is not the same as a stock certificate, which does not warrant the return of the investment. The baker that gets robbed on his way to a wedding is not absolved of his fiduciary responsibility to the purchaser of the cake.

Lost me. Which "founding document"? -- the U.S. Constitution as duly amended 27 times? Supreme Court case law? You know, the one that says something about the right to keep and bear arms.

That depends on them viewing taxation as robbery, which most people don't. You might as well say that the number of justices currently serving on the Supreme Court depends on what the majority of people think. I'm not saying that because most people taxation is theft makes that true. I'm saying you can't level the charge of irony at people who don't believe taxation is theft with the possible exception of some minarchists. I'm not charging people with irony but with moral inconsistency. If I cannot legally force a man to give me a portion of his income, why should a government employee have that right? Furthermore, I do not have any recent poll numbers on how many people do not regard taxation as theft. Therefore, before you go further with this argument, back up what you claim.

That depends on them viewing taxation as robbery, which most people don't. You might as well say that the number of justices currently serving on the Supreme Court depends on what the majority of people think. If people give to Washington on April 15 out of the servility of their own hearts, they are not being robbed. The next time you poll the populace on whether or not taxation is robbery, ask them if they would send the IRS a check for less than billed if they were legally allowed to do so.

You obviously know nothing of the history of gold certificates in banking. To repeat, if a bank wants to issue certificates and makes it clear that such paper does not necessarily correspond to anything of value held by the bank, then no one has been deceived. The same is true of gift certificates. Either they are or are not redeemable for something of value at the issuing institution.

I'm always surprised that some people think that the institution that is best able to guard against force and fraud is the one that ignores the safeguards of its own founding document and is financed by robbery.

Aha! Rothbardian sophistry! I knew I had you pegged for one. If they tell you in advance and you agree, then it's not fraud by any sensible definition of the term since they're not LYING to you.FRB does not create new property titles. It's a goddamn currency system. If you had your way, then in-game credits, gift certificates, and Bitcoin would be outlawed as "fraud". If the bill says, "This certificate represents 1/10 of an ounce of gold held at the First National Bank," and the bank issues more than one certificate for the very same 1/10 of an ounce of gold, then it is fraud. If the bill says, "You may redeem this certificate for 1/10 of an ounce of gold held at the First National Bank until we run out because we issued 20 other certificates for the exact same quantity of gold," then it is not fraud. Now since it is your habit to make statements that cannot be verified by any reference to reality, I do not expect you to be able to provide any proof that "my way" would mean banning gift certificates or Bitcoin.

Does a legal system than bans the forging of checks require a Federal Bureau of Check Protection? Why isn't that a matter to be handled by the same police department that enforces other laws against fraud? And why does financial oversight have to be a government matter? There is no reason why independent agencies that check the books, verify the integrity of gold reserves and other assets, and provide deposit insurance have to be staffed by people receiving a tax-funded paycheck. I believe this is just another version of "How can we make sure the drugs we take are safe unless we have the FDA?"

Like slavery or wife beating, fractional reserve banking depends on a legal system that permits it. Some Objectivists and libertarians have defended as moral the practice of issuing certificates of ownership of the same specific quantity of gold to two or more people simultaneously. I and others regard that as fraud. A thing cannot be exclusively owned by one person and then a second person at the same time. It is not new property that is being created; it is new titles to the same property. Note: this is not the same thing as two people sharing ownership of, say, a vacation condo. Mr. A owns half. Mr. B owns half. So far, no fraud. But Mr. B cannot then print out additional property titles that state "The Certificate Represents Half Ownership of Condo B-4" and sell the certificates to Messrs. C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J. You can say it is not the government but banks that are creating new money (with diminished value). But if government treats the issuance of new certificates as legitimate and not as fraudulent, then the government is supporting through its legal monoploy an involuntary transfer of wealth. Just as Mr. C's certificate of half ownership of B-4 is diminished in value, if D, E, F, G, H, I, and J own it also, a dollar bill representing a certain fraction of an ounce of gold falls in value if additional and identical certificates are printed and issued without a proportionate increase in the gold backing.

Tim's Vermeer thread: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14463&hl=%2Btim%26%2339%3Bs+%2Bvermeer

Florczak's video and the samples of his work that follow do more to establish the ultimate subjectivity of value judgments than any argument I could write.

It's not the writing that takes the most time. It's the thinking that precedes the writing.

Are you really that literal-minded? There is no mention of "right" in Amendments III, V and VIII; that does not mean the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right against quartering of troops, a right against double jeopardy, or a right against excessive bail. There is no mention of "satellite" in the name of the Moon. Now go argue with someone that Earth does not have a natural satellite. On damages caused by children, you are, once again, poorly informed. "Parental liability statutes impose liability on parents or guardians for the civil or criminal acts of their minor children. Virtually all states impose some degree of civil liability on parents for torts committed by their children." See here. I wrote, "If a child trespasses on a yard, the owner is entitled to demand that he cease and desist. If the child has damaged the lawn, the owner is entitled to seek compensation." I never said it would necessarily be the child that paid compensation. If the laser in your example does not cause damage, then the case is not actionable. On the other hand, it would be another matter if the laser is weapons grade. You say that I have used the word "force" incorrectly, but you provide no evidence, only an unsupported assertion. To make your case, you may have to reconsider your sacred principle of not using definitions in arguments. I may have made a mistake in debating with you. I had thought that you might be a reasonable person. But I do not know any educated person who seriously believes that the truth of a proposition is determined by how widely accepted it is. Sixty-three percent of Americans think the number of justices on the Supreme Court is a number other than nine. Ergo, the number of justices on the Supreme Court must a number other than nine. Right?

I agree with your conservative friend that the horrors of the 20th century were due to lawlessness. But it was the lawlessness of government, the lawlessness of absolute rulers who refused to be bound by any code which applied to ordinary men. Similarly, the decline of freedom in America can be traced in large part to the refusal of the government to abide by what is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. The Magna Carta was not a prototype of rights, it was the codification of rights, no different in nature or effect than the U.S. Constitution. Its influence on the generation that produced America's founding documents was profound. Consider Aritcle 39 of the Magna Carta: "No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." Now compare that with Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights: "No man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or, in any manner, destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the land." If freedoms promised by the Magna Carta were eroded or repealed over time, that is no less true of America's Bill of Rights. "Word play," "nonsense," and "desperation" are outbursts of your feelings but do not constitute an argument. As for liability, it is a well-established principle of civil law that needs no defense on this forum. If a child trespasses on a yard, the owner is entitled to demand that he cease and desist. If the child has damaged the lawn, the owner is entitled to seek compensation. I have already responded to the issue of flashing; it lacks the essential element of physical force. If taxation is morally legitimate, then so is any other form of theft including armed robbery. Collecting a federal paycheck does not exempt one from moral law.

The fact of the matter is that in my experience most Rothbardians try to reduce everything down to property and contract. Marriage is a contract, breach of contract is theft, all rights are property rights, blackmail can't be a crime because it assumes one owns their reputation, retail sales are contracts, debts are contracts, etc. No one has said that a definition by itself is an argument. Definitions are provided so that readers know exactly what is being expressed in an argument. If you do not believe that rights existed in the ancient world, then it should be a simple matter for you to prove that libraries full of books on Roman law are in error. Start with these two: Justinian: The Digest of Roman Law, translated by C.F. Kilbert, Penquin Classics, 1979. Life and Law of Rome, A.J. Crook, Cornell University Press 1967. When I seek an authoritative source on the nature of rights in our current legal system or in the philosophy, I don't go hunting about for an "average person." I tried that once and couldn't get anyone to admit he was average. You can tell your conservative friend or "average person" that World War I had nothing to do with the expansion of individual rights. The progressive Woodrow Wilson, who was largely responsible for the outcome of World War I and the disasters that ensued in the decades afterwards, did more to destroy American property rights than any previous U.S. president. By the time of the armistice, the government had taken over the ocean-shipping, railroad, telephone, and telegraph industries; commandeered hundreds of manufacturing plants; entered into massive enterprises on its own account in such varied departments as shipbuilding, wheat trading, and building construction; undertaken to lend huge sums to business directly or indirectly and to regulate the private issuance of securities; established official priorities for the use of transportation facilities, food, fuel, and many raw materials; fixed the prices of dozens of important commodities; intervened in hundreds of labor disputes; and conscripted millions of men for service in the armed forces." --Riggenbach, Jeff, Why American History Is Not What They Say Regarding the Magna Carta, you are simply misinformed. To take only one example of many rights secured by that document: No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny of delay right or justice. Regarding voting and trial by jury, ultimately those rest on property rights. Voting rights give the citizen a stake, a share in his government. What is at risk in a criminal trial if not the loss of the freedom to move one's body from place to place or right to retain all of the property one currently owns? As for the example of fumes moving from one's house to a neighbor's house, what is controversial about treating it as an invasion of one's property? If one cannot demonstrate harm, there is no liability. If one can demonstrate harm, it is no different than pursuing a claim for a bent fender in traffic court.

Socialists do not recognize self-ownership nor private ownership of the means of production, for that matter. By all means let us not keep our readers from knowing what they are doing, and be very clear: much of the discussion here about the primacy of the individual under law will find little favor among socialists. I wonder how much Judge Narragansett considered socialist opinion when he sat down to revise the Constitution?

On that basis it could be anything, like knowledge or Food Stamps or crossing an intersection diagonally in Perth. What's the point of conflating moral and legal rights? -- acquisition of sensory data, involuntary actions (sneezing and coughing), moral action (refusing a second piece of pie, falling in love)? To say that rights exist in both the moral and legal realms is not to conflate then. Obviously, certain legal rights (e,g. the right not to be blackmailed) are bogus with no moral basis in the principle of equal liberty.

There is no dichotomy between people and property, as you seem to suggest. Under libertarian law a person is protected by giving him full control over his body and whatever land or other material goods he has legitimately acquired. (One thing that we cannot give him control over is what other people think. Therefore, there can be no property right in reputation and thus no rightful claim to damages for defamation.) Unlike the Krells in Forbidden Planet, we operate through the instrumentality of a breathing, blood-pumping organism, which in turn interacts with the physical world around it. Thus rights and law must be grounded in the recognition of man the physical being, not man as a floating, disembodied spirit. How recognizing man's dominion over his own physical being would "displace moral agency" is a complete mystery. How recognizing man's dominion over his own physical being entitles the state to "to cut up the person" is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. How saying that man does not have self-ownership would better protect us from government-salaried man-cutters is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

No, they're really not (see above). Even if they are, the connection is one way. Not all rights are property rights and property rights themselves are reducible to liberty rights and claim rights. I think you've been drinking too much of the Rothbardian Kool-Aid (no offense). "Property" and "property rights" already have set meanings in the rest of the English-speaking community and the propertarian formulation relies on equivocation. A right is a "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." Rights were enjoyed by the citizens and Athens and Rome. They were not universal rights because they did not apply to slaves or women or non-citizens. (See the aforementioned reference.) But much the same was true of the U.S. until modern times. Would we say the landowners of Virginia in 1800 did not have rights? To state that rights did not come into existence until 1400 is to ignore centuries of Roman law, English common law, and the Magna Carta (1215). As for rights not being dependent on property, name one right under our Constitution and I'll show you how it requires property either in oneself or in material goods in order to enjoy it.

Neither the Romans nor the Greeks nor the Chinese had the concept of rights. All three societies had property. No they don't. In fact, you've largely got that backwards. Property (today) is defined in terms of rights. The Greeks most certainly did have rights under the Athenian democracy which developed around the fifth century BC. Although rights were limited to male, non-slave citizens, such rights included voting, property ownership, participation in religious worship, acceptance or rejection of paternity, and the ability to perform certain legal ceremonies. See Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980. Property and rights are interdependent concepts. If a person has no property (including ownership of his body), then he has no rights, for there is nothing he can exercise a right over.

Force is right or wrong only in terms of whose object force it is being applied to. I may slap my face to wake up in the morning. I may not slap my neighbor's face. Thus force requires the context of property to determine its morality. I do not have to list all my differences with Rand in this thread. I made it clear what I thought her error was in my initial post.

Straw argument. Liberty pertains to freedom from government. It doesn't mean you can leap to Mars without mechanical appliance, nor live forever, nor trespass upon and cause damage to the property possessed and defended by others without consequences. No one likes my definition of justice ("armed defense of innocent liberty") but the essential business of law is to distinguish fact from falsehood, right and wrong, guilt or innocence. The mock debate was not meant to reflect your position but to demonstrate the possible effect of demanding liberty without tying it to property. If liberty does not mean one doing anything one wants, then we need definitions and parameters of what is proper and permissible. Those parameters are in effect property lines, property titles. Individual rights certainly do pertain to freedom from government. However, while government may be the single greatest violator of rights, it is not the exclusive violator.

I have known Wendy McElroy to be invariably principled, courageous and trustworthy. I have no doubts about the accuracy of her account. I am very sorry she was the victim of a rip-off, especially one in the name of liberty. I too have been victimized by libertarian scamsters. However, I'm not prepared to say they are a greater threat in our movement than in the general population.

All of this is fascinating, which is why I always seek out your essays. However, I do not see that it makes the case for liberty as a condition that can exist apart from property. A: I have liberty. I may do anything I want. And as far as I'm concerned "anything" includes spray-painting that white fence. B: Well, you cannot do that. Not without your neighbor's permission. A: Why not? B: Well, because the fence belongs to him. A: Why should what belongs to him limit my liberty? B: Well, because, actually, you don't really have unlimited liberty. You have liberty to act only on your own property. A: What the hell is property? B: It's what is yours by first use and possession, by labor, and by voluntary exchange with others. A: Bummer! I don't care about property. I just want liberty. As for constitutions, there is nothing in the idea of a constitution that requires a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force.