----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 8:56 PM Subject: RE: Food Is, Still, Clearly Not a Human Right - Justin
>
> >
> > 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.
=============
Posted earlier, you might enjoy while your at you taxpayer financed desk:
< < http://widerquist.com/karl/reciprocity.pdf >
Under our current system lots of people don't have to work in order to eat. Or purchase yachts.
> >
> >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
>
====================
Well by this naive delegability theory of economic functions we already have market socialism........
Ian