Is there some moral justification for support of a debtors' revolt in the current economic conditions? I'm asking because there seems to be a lot of anger at banks and other financial institutions that are kicking out homeowners and whatnot. Could libertarians morally capitalize on this situation?
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
I guess I should provide my input first. My first reaction is that no libertarian can support a debtors' revolt. However, the explicit bailouts as well as the implicit bailouts (e.g. the "Bernanke put") could provide a libertarian justification for a debtors' revolt. Likewise, a libertarian could stand against fraud and "fine print" of various credit cards and loans.
I think this article (and it's comments) might be relevant: http://blog.mises.org/archives/009531.asp. I'm personally undecided. I can see arguments for both positions on this issue and neither of them have me firmly convinced either way.
Fractional reserve banking and credit expansion make me say "yes, it's ok"
Whereas the part about agreeing to the contract makes me think "no, it's not ok"
I could contest that second point to some extent, though. The people who use money are ignorant of how it comes into existence and are for the most part, unaware that the purchasing power it possesses is constantly stolen from them.
What I would consider "more moral" is a money revolt.
The appeal to "charity" is a truly ironic one. First, it is hardly "charity" to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. -Rothbard
I think this can aaaall be resolved by allowing debtors the same powers as their creditors: the right to print money
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
A debtors revolt is immoral if a legitimate debt is owed.
On to Giant Joe's point: there is no guarantee that money will not be printed or debased, or that money will not be on loan under fractional reserve. In this sense then, the simple fact of credit expansion or fractional reserve banking do not give one the moral right to break contract. You only own the paper, not the value behind it.
Where Joe has a point though is in the monopolization of money creation and centralized banking. I greatly enjoy the idea of a 'money revolt'.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap