Political Theory

Re: Why Antifraud Regulations Are Statist

cab21 — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 03:22:40 GMT

you are proposing that it is ok to breech contracts.

that people should not have the right to put authentic clauses into contracts where if the product is not authentic the contract is breeched.

Re: Why Antifraud Regulations Are Statist

alsdjfalsdjfos — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 03:09:12 GMT

The similarity between what you prose and being under duress is that you feel people should be forced to deal with fraud, like it's okay, and when people signed things under duress, they feel forced to, like it's okay. Neither is.

I'm not "forcing anyone to deal with" anything, I'm not initiating any physical force here, you're the one proposing outlawing something.

Your argument stands on nothing,

Actually, yours does.

And then there was spam.

Re: Why Antifraud Regulations Are Statist

cab21 — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 02:10:33 GMT

fraud is agression

the initiation of fraud has no place in a nonagression society.

Re: Why Antifraud Regulations Are Statist

Phi est aureum — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 02:04:06 GMT

The similarity between what you prose and being under duress is that you feel people should be forced to deal with fraud, like it's okay, and when people signed things under duress, they feel forced to, like it's okay. Neither is.

The difference between trademark and fraud is simple, but I don't think you could grasp it. When a trademark is violated, the company (Kraft, in your example) is the one suing the imposter company for damages (or lost revenue actually). When fraud of a similar vein occurs, the person who was sold macaroni under the impression that it was Kraft-made would be the one to seek restitution. In the first case, there is no harm done to Kraft. They were never part of the transaction. In the second case, the consumer was wronged because they were given a product they did not wish to buy, while the imposter company tried to keep the money. In fact, if the consumer were to get his money back, he will likely buy real Kraft macaroni, since that is what he wanted in the first place.

Your argument stands on nothing, even with all your flailing about a right to commit fraud.

Nice try (impala). You think you're a (trailblazer), but you follow in the paths of others. (impala)

Re: Why Antifraud Regulations Are Statist

alsdjfalsdjfos — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:43:37 GMT

That is true, but the only law in a free, non-aggressive capitalist society is protection of personal property from aggression and nothing more, not statist concepts such as "personal harm" or some slippery-slope, preemptive notion of protection from blame.

However, I don't think either of us will make much progress against the entrenched positions in this discussion, so I am respectfully bowing out of this thread.

Re: Why Antifraud Regulations Are Statist

cab21 — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:32:46 GMT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_fraud

if someone uses my name to hire a hitman, i will be the one blamed for the hitman.

i will be held responsible for bank accounts oppend in my name, so if someone opens a account and commits crimes, i will be blamed, not the random person who stole my name.

if someone writes a book advocating childrape, then uses another persons name, picture, signature, personal seal. people are going to blame the person represented to write the book rather than the real author if the identity fraud is successfuly pulled off.

Re: Why Antifraud Regulations Are Statist

alsdjfalsdjfos — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:18:04 GMT

This has similarities to contracts agreed to under duress, and those should not be upheld either

That's a stretch. There is no duress taking place during fraud- in fact duress requires that the victim(s) be aware of the crime, while fraud can only occur using deception. Lying certainly isn't a crime (by itself).

No, it is illegal because it is a violation of trademark.

I don't understand how you can consider lying about trademark a form of fraud while acknowledging IP is illegitimate.

I'm sure you would be right up there assisting the 19th century progressives in campaigning for the "truth in labeling" portions of the tyrannical Pure Food and Drug Act.

this is called credit fraud.

That's called stealing. Credit card fraud itself does not necessarily involve stealing money, it merely involves opening/possessing (without physical theft) a credit card in someone elses name.

Re: Why Antifraud Regulations Are Statist

cab21 — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:01:13 GMT

stealing physical property is part of fraud.

if i have a credit card, and someone steals the information from my credit card, they can use my credit card to purchase products in my name, stealing my money and commiting fraud. this is called credit fraud. a collection agency will try to collect from me, not the random person who stole my credit card information.

if someone registeres a bank account in another persons names, the dro of the original person will find out about the activity and the original owner would have protection.

if someone trades a mislabled product, the purchaser is not liable for the fraud of the seller.

Re: Why Antifraud Regulations Are Statist

Phi est aureum — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:58:40 GMT

it is illegal for new macaroni companies to package their product as if it was Kraft macaroni and cheese, because that would would be "fraud".

No, it is illegal because it is a violation of trademark. It should be considered fraud; trademark (and other forms of intellectual property) laws should be considered illegitimate. Again, fraud is (and ought to be) outlawed because one party, for example, takes money from another party in exchange for product A, but under guise that it was actually product B. The selling party has not held up their end of the bargain. This has similarities to contracts agreed to under duress, and those should not be upheld either.

There is no right to commit fraud (impala). To do so is not very (cavalier).

Re: Why Antifraud Regulations Are Statist

alsdjfalsdjfos — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:16:58 GMT

part of physical property is being able to trace it back to a legit owner, if identify is subjective at whim to be stolen, then there is no way to trace ownership back to a owner.

Stealing physical property is different from fraud. There is no physical property stolen when a bank account and so forth are registered in another person's name, or when a mislabeled product is sold; or, if trading a misabeled product is "stealing", then both parties are equally liable.

Re: Why Antifraud Regulations Are Statist

cab21 — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:29:32 GMT

i did not justify legislation

i said fraud is immoral

dro's would deal with fraud

contracts would deal with fraud.

anyone who ignores fraud is a idiot risking his/her life and the lives of others.

identidy is the foundation of property, if we don't have identidy, we don't own physical things as anyone can claim to be anyone, anyone can claim to be owner of any physical property and anyone can claim to be anyone and forge papers to say they own anything. part of physical property is being able to trace it back to a legit owner, if identify is subjective at whim to be stolen, then there is no way to trace ownership back to a owner.

Re: Why Antifraud Regulations Are Statist

gotlucky — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:46:52 GMT

This thread is good for laughs. Sometimes things just get too serious around here. Thanks for keeping things in perspective, ajklagrgafakl.

Re: Why Antifraud Regulations Are Statist

alsdjfalsdjfos — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:31:13 GMT

Obviously a person might steal physical property or deliberately poison someone, but those are dealt with under separate laws, and fraud (fraud itself, not using it as a means to commit some other crime any more than some statists would argue that driving should be a crime to prevent people running over pedestrians) is completely legitimate. But I assumed people here were against intellectual property. I may have been wrong.

Antifraud legislation is meant to prevent businesses from marketing their own product under another company's brand or another intellectual property characteristic of the product. For example, it is illegal for new macaroni companies to package their product as if it was Kraft macaroni and cheese, because that would would be "fraud".

This is a clear reason why fraud should be legal, because making it illegal is a form of intellectual property protection, in this case and in all other instances of fraud.

Re: Why Antifraud Regulations Are Statist

alsdjfalsdjfos — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:08:59 GMT

Do you think antifraud legislation is inherently illegitimate and statist like all other forms of regulation? If so, I agree with you.

Re: Why Antifraud Regulations Are Statist

HabbaBabba — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:08:17 GMT

What? Where... The hell are you talking about?