• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

PSL Presidential Campaign: What is Socialism

sangha said:
I specifically stated that I did give him the potion (ie "in exchange" - if I didn't give it to him, there's be no "exchange")
Click to expand...

You gave him a potion. You did not give him the potion you promised him. You defrauded him by promising one thing and delivering something else.

Just because libertarian loons view it that way doesn't make it true. And you offered no "explanation". You merely declared it "tantamount to theft" without offering any explantion. I suspect you think "claiming something" is "tantamount to explaining something" :lol:
Click to expand...

The explanation is that when you agree to the exchange there is a transfer of property rights. You acquire ownership of the cash the buyer gave you, and the buyer acquires ownership of the eternal life potion you sold him. So he now owns an eternal life potion. Yet, you do not give him his property, you secretly give him a decoy. You did not deliver the to him what he now owns. You are stealing from him.
 
Centinel said:
You gave him a potion. You did not give him the potion you promised him. You defrauded him by promising one thing and delivering something else.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did. I gave him the exact bottle I promised to give him. I lied, but lying is not the use of force.

You're still trying to convince me that fraud is theft, even though even you admit that they're not the same

The explanation is that when you agree to the exchange there is a transfer of property rights. You acquire ownership of the cash the buyer gave you, and the buyer acquires ownership of the eternal life potion you sold him. So he now owns an eternal life potion. Yet, you do not give him his property, you secretly give him a decoy. You did not deliver the to him what he now owns. You are stealing from him.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. I promised him the bottle of water. I told him that the water would give him eternal life, but I did not sell the qualities of the water; only the bottle of water. If he chose to believe me, caveat emptor.

Even under the current law, which you claim limits our freedom, sellers are allowed to make all sorts of misrepresentations about their product (ex drink this beer and the womens' swedish volleyball team will **** your brains out) , though claims about health matters are highly regulated. However, libertarians oppose this form of regulation.

I gave him the property (ie the bottle of water) I promised him. I gave him no decoy. I gave him the exact same bottle of water I showed to him. The same bottle he agreed to take in exchange for his car. His belief in my promise is his mistake. No theft. Nothing was stolen. It was merely fraudelent, which even you agreed is not theft
 
sangha said:
Wrong again. I promised him the bottle of water. I told him that the water would give him eternal life, but I did not sell the qualities of the water; only the bottle of water. If he chose to believe me, caveat emptor.
Click to expand...

Well, you may not think that you defrauded your victim, but libertarians generally regard what you did as fraud, and, while you feel as if what you did is fine, they oppose such actions.

I gave him the property (ie the bottle of water) I promised him. I gave him no decoy. I gave him the exact same bottle of water I showed to him. The same bottle he agreed to take in exchange for his car. His belief in my promise is his mistake. No theft. Nothing was stolen. It was merely fraudelent, which even you agreed is not theft
Click to expand...

You promised him an eternal life potion, but you sold him water. You may feel as if this is fine, but most libertarians would consider this fraud and would oppose such an act.
 
Centinel said:
Well, you may not think that you defrauded your victim, but libertarians generally regard what you did as fraud, and, while you feel as if what you did is fine, they oppose such actions.
Click to expand...

Your post is delusional. I'm the one who called it fraud, so where did you get the inane notion that I think I did not defraud that person?

You seem to have become confused about what we're talking about. We're not disputing that it's fraud. We're disagreeing whether or not it's theft. Under the laws of the land, and the law of logic, it's not theft.



You promised him an eternal life potion, but you sold him water. You may feel as if this is fine, but most libertarians would consider this fraud and would oppose such an act.
Click to expand...

No, I promised him a bottle of water, and told him the water would give him eternal life. It is fraud, but you have yet to explain why the libertarians would allow other people to initiate force against me when I have not consented to it
 
sangha said:
Your post is delusional. I'm the one who called it fraud, so where did you get the inane notion that I think I did not defraud that person?

You seem to have become confused about what we're talking about. We're not disputing that it's fraud. We're disagreeing whether or not it's theft. Under the laws of the land, and the law of logic, it's not theft.
Click to expand...

Libertarians argue that fraud is akin to theft in that it is a violation of property rights. Fraud is failure to fulfill a voluntarily agreed upon transfer of property, and is therefore implicit theft. For example, if A sells to B a bottle which A says contains water that can give eternal life, and it contains only ordinary water, then A has taken B's money and not fulfilled the agreed to requirements of the transfer -- the delivery of water that gives eternal life. A has therefore stolen B's property.

No, I promised him a bottle of water, and told him the water would give him eternal life. It is fraud, but you have yet to explain why the libertarians would allow other people to initiate force against me when I have not consented to it
Click to expand...

See the above paragraph. That is why libertarians consider fraud to be actionable at law.
 
Centinel said:
Libertarians argue that fraud is akin to theft in that it is a violation of property rights. Fraud is failure to fulfill a voluntarily agreed upon transfer of property, and is therefore implicit theft. For example, if A sells to B a bottle which A says contains water that can give eternal life, and it contains only ordinary water, then A has taken B's money and not fulfilled the agreed to requirements of the transfer -- the delivery of water that gives eternal life. A has therefore stolen B's property.

See the above paragraph. That is why libertarians consider fraud to be actionable at law.
Click to expand...


Libertarians can argue whatever they want, it doesn't make it true. And there are plenty of property right violations that are not theft - they're called torts

And you've described fraud wrong. What you've described is called "failure to perform" on a contractual obligation, which is not fraud. WRT to the water, it is called a misrepresentation, and that is allowed. This may surprise you, but things are illegal simply because "libertarians argue" that it should be
 
sangha said:
Libertarians can argue whatever they want, it doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...

My apologies. I understood you to be asking about why libertarians thought fraud was actionable at law.

And there are plenty of property right violations that are not theft - they're called torts
Click to expand...

Agreed. Torts are property rights violations.

And you've described fraud wrong. What you've described is called "failure to perform" on a contractual obligation, which is not fraud. WRT to the water, it is called a misrepresentation, and that is allowed. This may surprise you, but things are illegal simply because "libertarians argue" that it should be
Click to expand...

Perhaps there is a typo in your last sentence.
 
Centinel said:
My apologies. I understood you to be asking about why libertarians thought fraud was actionable at law.
Click to expand...

And your answer was "Because that's what they think" :cuckoo:



Agreed. Torts are property rights violations.
Click to expand...

ANd they're not fraud nor theft, as you mistakenly claimed. To wit
Centinel said:
Fraud is failure to fulfill a voluntarily agreed upon transfer of property, and is therefore implicit theft.
Click to expand...

I repeat - that is called "failure to perform" and is neither fraud nor theft, as you mistakenly claimed.



Perhaps there is a typo in your last sentence.
Click to expand...

No, but there's definitely errors in your claims and your logic. You've argued that because "failure to perform" is fraud (which it isn't, it's a tort (which aren't crimes)), fraud is akin to theft (both of which are crimes)

Maybe you want to try that again. This time, explain why it's OK for the govt to initiate force against the defrauder when the defrauder never consented to it.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
And your answer was "Because that's what they think" :cuckoo:

Maybe you want to try that again. This time, explain why it's OK for the govt to initiate force against the defrauder when the defrauder never consented to it.
Click to expand...

You asked me to explain why libertarians oppose fraud, correct?

Libertarians view fraud as a failure to fulfill a voluntarily agreed upon transfer of property, and is therefore implicit theft. For example, if A sells to B a bottle which A says contains water that can give eternal life, and it contains only ordinary water, then A has taken B's money and not fulfilled the agreed to requirements of the transfer -- the delivery of water that gives eternal life. A has therefore stolen B's property.
 
You should use fewer, and smaller words. Maybe some pictures too.
 
beerftw said:
you know i was looking at feudalism today,and it dawned on me,socialism is feudalism streamlined.all these years people have tried to make claims for socialism and social progress,yet i figured out old marx was so brilliant he repackaged feudalism which was replaced by capitolism due to feudalisms failure to cope with an expanding society.

it was so brilliant,eliminate the lords and you basically have the same thing as socialism,rebrand its name for those still sore over feudalism,and you get the new workers rights movement,which replaced the 1000 year old version which was essentially the same thing,just with more central government control and less middleman.granted socialism has alot more changes than just that,but in its essence,it is feudalism 2.0.both systems however gave the workers rights to means of production,land property and wealth sharing,and both systems tie people together through collectivization.

infact i think ill just start calling socialism classless feudalism.
Click to expand...

Before you pat yourself on the back thinking you've come up with something unique,

Anarcho-Syndicalist Society - YouTube
 
the PSL is no threat... the have no chance in hell of gaining power... nor living long if they did.

even if they were to win the presidency, the US Constitution stands directly in their way of confiscating property.

the PSL is even more irrellevent than the Rent is Too damn High Party.
 
Centinel said:
You asked me to explain why libertarians oppose fraud, correct?

Libertarians view fraud as a failure to fulfill a voluntarily agreed upon transfer of property, and is therefore implicit theft. For example, if A sells to B a bottle which A says contains water that can give eternal life, and it contains only ordinary water, then A has taken B's money and not fulfilled the agreed to requirements of the transfer -- the delivery of water that gives eternal life. A has therefore stolen B's property.
Click to expand...

I've asked you several questions, and you've dodged each of them

And there's no such thing as "implicit theft". You just made that up.

IME, most libertarians believe in "caveat emptor" You are not only making things up, but misrepresenting libertarian ideology

So, aside from the dishonest "fraud is like theft because libertarians say it is", you've done nothing to explain why libertarians support govt force to prevent fraud and why it's OK for the govt to use force against defrauders when the defrauders never gave the govt permission to use force against them
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
I've asked you several questions, and you've dodged each of them

And there's no such thing as "implicit theft". You just made that up.

IME, most libertarians believe in "caveat emptor" You are not only making things up, but misrepresenting libertarian ideology

So, aside from the dishonest "fraud is like theft because libertarians say it is", you've done nothing to explain why libertarians support govt force to prevent fraud and why it's OK for the govt to use force against defrauders when the defrauders never gave the govt permission to use force against them
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you can't understand. The example I have been providing you is exactly the same sort of example provided by Murray Rothbard, a fairly well known libertarian. Here's his explanation for supporting government force to punish fraud and why he considers fraud to be a form of theft:

Under our proposed theory would fraud be actionable at law? Yes, because fraud is failure to fulfill a voluntarily agreed upon transfer of property, and is therefore implicit theft. If, for example, A sells to B a package which A says contains a radio, and it contains only a pile of scrap metal, then A has taken B's money and not fulfilled the agreed upon conditions for such a transfer — the delivery of a radio. A has therefore stolen B's property. The same applies to a failure to fulfill any product warranty. If, for example, the seller asserts that the contents of a certain package include 5 ounces of product X, and they do not do so, then the seller has taken money without fulfilling the terms of the contract; he has in effect stolen the buyer's money.
Click to expand...

There is your explanation.
 
Centinel said:
I'm sorry you can't understand. The example I have been providing you is exactly the same sort of example provided by Murray Rothbard, a fairly well known libertarian. Here's his explanation for supporting government force to punish fraud and why he considers fraud to be a form of theft:



There is your explanation.
Click to expand...

The fact that you found another libertarian who spouts the same nonsense doesn't make it any more true. Besides, in my example, I delivered the exact bottle of water I promised to deliver, so Rothbards example is not the same thing.
 
sangha said:
The fact that you found another libertarian who spouts the same nonsense doesn't make it any more true. Besides, in my example, I delivered the exact bottle of water I promised to deliver, so Rothbards example is not the same thing.
Click to expand...

I don't think Libertarians are outside of the mainstream in seeing fraud as a form of theft.... I don't really know of anyone who doesn't find fraud to be actionable by law along that line of reasoning.

why shouldn't fraud be actionable by law?
 
Thrilla said:
I don't think Libertarians are outside of the mainstream in seeing fraud as a form of theft.... I don't really know of anyone who doesn't find fraud to be actionable by law along that line of reasoning.

why shouldn't fraud be actionable by law?
Click to expand...

Yes, fraud is "actionable by law", but so is jaywalking. That doesn't make either one "theft"
 
sangha said:
Yes, fraud is "actionable by law", but so is jaywalking. That doesn't make either one "theft"
Click to expand...

well, I can't really see a scenario where jaywalking can be considers theft.... but fraud?..sure thing.

theft is a generic term for the taking of another persons property without consent.
in a transaction where fraud is present, consent would be predicated on adhering to the agreed upon terms ... if i say i'll pay a buck for a bottle of water, and you instead give me bottle of vinegar, one would reasonably assume that you have fraudulently represented your part of the transaction .. you have taken my dollar and given me something I have not consented to receive.... without that consent, you find yourself in the realm of theft
now, you wouldn't be charged with robbery or any other common crime associated with theft... but what you have done is theft nonetheless.

now, I don't think all fraud is theft, but in cases where there is material gain, sure.. there an element of theft there.
 
Thrilla said:
well, I can't really see a scenario where jaywalking can be considers theft.... but fraud?..sure thing.
Click to expand...

And yet. you can't explain how it's theft. Theft requires the forceful taking of anothers property. Fraud does not use force

theft is a generic term for the taking of another persons property without consent.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Theft is the generic term for the forceful taking of anothers property

And with fraud, the victims consents to the transfer of property. There is no force


in a transaction where fraud is present, consent would be predicated on adhering to the agreed upon terms ... if i say i'll pay a buck for a bottle of water, and you instead give me bottle of vinegar, one would reasonably assume that you have fraudulently represented your part of the transaction .. you have taken my dollar and given me something I have not consented to receive.... without that consent, you find yourself in the realm of theft
now, you wouldn't be charged with robbery or any other common crime associated with theft... but what you have done is theft nonetheless.
Click to expand...

No, that is not theft. That is fraud.

All you've done is insist that fraud = theft, as if your insistence proves that it's true. It's not. Look in a dictionary

now, I don't think all fraud is theft, but in cases where there is material gain, sure.. there an element of theft there.
Click to expand...

All fraud involves a material gain. All theft involves a material gain. What seperates them is the use of force. Fraud uses no force; theft does
 
sangha said:
And yet. you can't explain how it's theft. Theft requires the forceful taking of anothers property. Fraud does not use force
Click to expand...

All theft uses force huh?

I'll give you a do-over. Think about what your saying and try again.
 
Centinel said:
All theft uses force huh?

I'll give you a do-over. Think about what your saying and try again.
Click to expand...

Theft | Define Theft at Dictionary.com
theft   [theft] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
2.
an instance of this.
3.
Archaic . something stolen.
Click to expand...

Fraud | Define Fraud at Dictionary.com

fraud   [frawd] Show IPA
noun
1.
deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2.
a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3.
any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4.
a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom