Thurs. 12/04/12 20:27 EDT
.post #145
[url=Obstruction of Justice - #7 by Meistro]
[url=Obstruction of Justice - #11 by Meistro]
As I understand it, “fraud” in the libertarian sense means something more restricted than just “lying.” Fraud is the promise to offer one thing in exchange for another, but the deliberate failure to deliver it (note that the inadvertent or non-willful failure to deliver, while still constituting a breach of contract, does not constitute “fraud”). It is the use of a promise never intended to be kept (i.e. a lie), in order to confiscate the property of the party with whom the fraudster has contracted.
Examples:
-
I offer “sugar pills” for $10.00 a box. The pills are actually deadly poison.
In this example, I have contracted with you to deliver one thing (sugar pills), but have in fact delivered something else. -
I contract with you to rent your apartment for $1000.00/month. Once I take possession, my cheques bounce and, using loopholes in the Landlord and Tenant Act, I continue to live rent-free for an entire year, at your expense.
In this example, I have contracted with you to deliver one thing ($1000/month), but have intentionally withheld delivery.
In both examples, the defrauded party has delivered property to the defrauding party, but has failed to receive the property he was promised in exchange. Non-fraudulent exchange results in a profit (psychological and/or monetary and/or other) for both parties and is hence called “win-win” or “positive sum.” Fraudulent exchange results in a profit for one party and a loss for the other and is hence called “win-lose” or “zero-sum.” Note that, while all fraud is zero-sum, not all zero-sum is fraud.
That’s my understanding of it, anyway.