The real easy way of resolving this issue/problem is to ask all of the possessors of Liberty Dollar coins and currencies if they want to keep their property. If they want to keep the LDs, then apparently they don't feel they've been defrauded. Maybe they think it's a collectors item or some such thing.

On the other hand, if they truly thought that the LD's they have/had were not the property they expected them to be (some other currency), then they can go sue the guy who sold it to them and attempt to recover the property they exchanged it for.

Finally, and last but not least, perhaps whoever owns these LDs should be cautioned against attempting to claim they are something they're not to avoid the appearance of fraud. But isn't that just being obvious? Misrepresentation of any object as something it is not, in trade, risks a contract breach. Sounds like 'Contracts 101' to me.

How hard was that?

Are we to assume that these mentally ill people are violent and incapable of survival? Are we also to assume that these menally ill people don't have parents, friends, or other caring individuals (charitable organizations) who would want to take care of them? A similar argument could be made about children.

That's delusional and daft too. I've seen the real world, and much of what I see doesn't impress me when it comes to government intervention programs.

Try to think outside the box, and stop insisting you need society to mollycoddle you so much.

I've got a question. It's not aimed at anybody, and anybody can answer, of course.

Assumptions:
1) All roads are private.
2) A new home owner X wants to move in.
3) X's new home lies adjacent to private road A.
4) X negotiates to pay for use of private road A at a rate of 5c/mi.
5) X finds 5c/mi as acceptable and buys the home.
6) The only easement away from X's property is A's road.

Scenario:
1) The owner of road A decides to raise the rate to 5000c/mi. It is his property and he can change the price as it is in his discretion and prerogative to do so.
2) X won't pay, or doesn't have the money to pay the new road rate.
3) X can't leave without trespassing, but does so anyway in violation of A's property rights.

What should the legal consequence of X's trespass of A's road be?

That would be possible if you could bottle it to the exclusion of others. An air compressor does this. The air in your house might also qualify. To just verbally claim something as yours, doesn't suffice. There would have to be a way to distinguish your physical property as being identified as specifically yours. That's pretty hard to do with air. The same could be said for the moon, the stars, and a number of other things that are hard to reach, contain, label or identify in some manner.

Even highly trafficked roads/byways/paths are hard to identify as owned even when the road is easily identifiable and possessible as real estate. Temporary occupancy and abandonment in this way is similar to the way we breathe air. You inhale it, and while it's in your lungs, it's exclusively your property; after you exhale it, the air is abandoned, and thus available for others to use again.

However, were you to spuriously claim ownership one day to either the air or the road, I don't think that would be justifiable, since where you were freely able to breathe the day before, or travel on a specific road, now you cannot without trespass or theft. Seems to me to be a bit of a paradox.

If taxes are used to redistribute wealth, then I'm having nothing of it. What you're suggesting is that when certain individuals (or groups thereof) of society acquire wealth of "greater value" than what "value" you think you have, you try to "even the score" by stealing from them and giving it to those who have less. There sure are a lot of people in this forum who have a "robbin(g)hood" complex.

So stealing is legally acceptable? That's not even considering the fact that banks, if they're permitted to issue "legal tender" laws, are also stealing from the mostly unsuspecting public when their currency gets debased by willy-nilly fiat inflated paper.


Why wouldn't health care be about making money? Why couldn't it be charity-run too? You have a job only because somebody else values your skills and are willing to give you something in exchange for it. I suppose it would be nice to have free medical care, but you shouldn't force me to give it to you. I like free as much as the next person, but if it's not, we shouldn't be stealing to get it.


Walmart could be defined as a trader. It buys products from suppliers, ships them to a store where they inventory and shelve them, and then they trade them for a profit, hence trader. You should be more specific.

There is nothing wrong with derivatives specifically. The only 'derivative' I don't like are fiat currencies. If you think about it, most fiat currencies are derivatives of some sort, so in a way it depends on who wants to play what game and based on what rules. Are the participants in said market willing, able, and knowledgeable? If you can't make heads or tails of a contract, is it a contract?

Anybody should be able to hold a share of ownership in a company for as long as s/he wishes. Again, it all depends on the specific contract covenants.

I'm not sure what you mean by private "club". And you make "round up" sound like a cattle drive. I certainly don't do things for free either, unless I'm so inclined.

Ding, ding, ding, we have an answer. It certainly is very interesting indeed. It's circumstantial.

legal:
   1. Of, relating to, or concerned with law.
   2. One that is in accord with certain rules or laws.

law:
   1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
   2. (Law) a rule or set of rules, enforceable by the courts, regulating the government of a state, the relationship between the organs of government and the subjects of the state, and the relationship or conduct of subjects towards each other.
   
conduct:
   1. The way a person acts, especially from the standpoint of morality and ethics.
   
morality:
   1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
   2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
   3. Virtuous conduct.
   4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
   
See how I got from legal to moral? You can't say morality has no role in law making when that is exactly the reason laws exist. Laws concern themselves with morality. Laws and morals are 'is-ought' issues.

Dumb example:

The force due to gravity keeps me from leaving earths orbit...
                  vs.
I hate the force due to gravity so we should outlaw it...

The first statement 'is', the second statement is 'ought'. Different animals altogether.

I don't see how 'I', 'we', 'me', or 'you' changes anything with regards to lawfulness. I've written a few laws of my own, but I certainly don't expect to be paid. If on the other hand you'd like to contribute, I've got a bitcoin address you can send me donations to.

Consistency is important no doubt. Taxes are unnecessary in my mind.

...It's immoral to rape another person.
...It's immoral to enslave another person.
...It's immoral to murder another person.
...It's immoral to steal from another person.

It's still a moral question regardless of how you phrase it. The only real issue is what is both illegal and immoral. Which is to say, there can be an infinite number of immoral or moral things that can be done. The ones that we can make laws for are much more limited in nature. That's all I was trying to convey. Every question of 'ought' is more or less a moral, or at the very least, a preferential one. There are a lot of things going on in the world around us, the question is which of them ought we to concern ourselves with in relation to our fellow man?

Which ought we to make laws for, and which should we ought not to make laws for?

You make it sound as if that doesn't already happen now. I've got a pair of glasses you could look thru, but they're not rose colored.

The mentally ill aren't violent are they? If they are, then there are a number of options available to the victims. Again, taxing isn't necessary here. You could join an association of jail service providers, and pay membership fees, etc.

I know it sounds unusual, perhaps even a bit unorthodox, but you never know, it might just work. Just because there isn't anybody trying it, doesn't mean it won't.

That would be trespass if I don't have permission. If I must pay a toll or some other fee for the use of some property that isn't mine, then I must decide if it is in my best interests to do so. It's not so unlike me wanting access to your house and you deny me unless I provide something in exchange.

In the context you use the word 'taxpayer', I could substitute the word shareholder, affiliate, member or associate.

A tax may be one way to defend against violent individuals whether they be mentally ill or robbers. It however isn't the only way, and it certainly isn't the way I would suggest. I'm arguing that there is a better more just and apropos way of handling such issues.

I've got a very short list of compromises I'd remotely consider. Taxing isn't one of them.

The "STATE" is a group of individuals elected by voters, a coup de'tat, or a succession of "royal blood". It's likely that they may not even represent a majority as this is rare, even today. At best, a democratic state should only legally act on behalf of only those voters who expressly gave their consent.

If I haven't contracted for services, or at the very least voted for you and your "highwaymen", you don't represent me (this is unequivocal as my life is mine and not state owned). You may have superior forces and may apply those betimes, but superior force does not a legal state make.

Legal does not equal most powerful. I'm sure you'll disagree with this, but it isn't much of a stretch.

Again, as I've said in the past, if "might makes right" then why not just dispense with the laws? Who are you trying to kid anyway? That's the entire sum total of your argument.

And you're a cutie. Cooool duuude, whatever!!

Your logic is more fallible than mine. I accept the fact that property and liberty are concepts invented by humans to bring order and civility to their actions. It's one of the reasons I believe the way I do. I believe in basic principles of law, not the arbitrariness of their meaning and application by society as a whole.

By being arbitrary you create the possibility where the division in classes of individuals, special privilege, monopoly and a whole host of manipulatory behaviour springs forth from "special circumstances". The second your law violates its original purpose and intent, it no longer is law but the violation of law.

The purpose and mission of law is to prevent injustice, not cause it.

I can give 50 gp to my neighbor right now. You taxing me didn't enable me to do so. That's a non sequitur. If I want to acquire personal security or voluntarily pay into a system that protects my rights, I don't have a problem with that.

Taxes are not voluntary. And even if I were aware that taxes in my locale existed, still doesn't justify its application. I've had robbers in my neighborhood too, but that doesn't justify theft does it?

I'm not confused. My logic is sound. I know exactly what the definitions of property and theft are. I've got a treatise on law that I spent much time perfecting. It has very few flaws, if any. For the most part, property can only exist if one man may possess, own, or control an object independent and exclusive of another person.

The second you violate that principle, and despite your reasoning (collectivism, majority rule, taxation, norms, societal coercion), the concept of property goes away. It dissolves into some version of "might makes right" or the "strongest survive". If you believe in such things, then there is very little need for laws.

Laws are created out of the need to protect the individual life, liberty and property of man. If you wish to play the game of prey and predator, then we can argue the finer points of superior species or top-of-the-food-chain animal behaviour characteristics.

EDIT: A law ceases to be a law when it conflicts with itself and its own principle.

Yes, but you described it perfectly. It's rubbish. My hypothetical version just makes it more out in the open, where yours conceals it in legalese and societal norms.

Taxing is a concealed means of stealthily plundering from those who don't know you personally, and who are separated by many persons; and when questioned about the acts they commit, summarily state that they are legally empowered by their "authorized agents" whose so-called representatives of the people were voted into office in some "official" manner to create legislation purporting to protect the best interests of the majority.

All in all, it's merely a convenient way to separate the thief from the theft.

The assassination comment was a tongue-in-cheek joke and had nothing to do with capital punishment. Answer the 50 pieces of gold problem.