>
> Of course, and another absolute and extra-historical right is the right
>not
>to have your property taken without recompense or previous ceding of rights
>by contract,
No such right exists outside the law. Property is a creature of the law, an entitlement purely enforceable by the state. Property is what the state lets you have because it is beneficial to allow you to have and use it. If, as I believe, it is not beneficial to society to allow individuals to privately own productive assets, it violates no non-legal right to take that property away.
>and not to be forced to provide work against your own will.
Rubbish. Any society will require the lazy and the shirkers to work in order to eat.
>
>When I say that money is itself a contract of sorts, Justin replies:
>
>"??Not in law. Contract requires definite terms, offer, acceptance,
>consideration, and is a private agreement that only binds the parties
>contracting. (Sorry, mention contract to a lawyer, see what happens.)
>Money's utterly different."
>
> I disagree, counselor. Money is "legal tender" - that which *must* be
>accepted as payment, but by no means the only thing that *could* be
>accepted
>as payment. Look at Russia and Argentina, where the money contract has
>broken down. Money is a fundamental agreement as to the tender of value in
>the society.
This show that money is a convention, not that it is a contract. It is not a private agreement. It is a social convention to accept bits of metal or paper or bytes in exchange for goods and services.
It is a contract among banks and governments and individuals
>and we know that because money used to be issued by private banks as a
>privately-issued security (contract).
No, the govt can authorize private agents to perform public functions. that doesn't male those functions private. It partly makes public those private agents.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com