The Cancer Is Spreading...

Man pays for custom porn film of women burning his stamp collection

Link to story:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...7887586.html

The part of US personal property rights that people either forget about or ignore is the concept of responsibility. Understanding what it is that one owns, and why it is valuable or important. And that collecting is more then simple ego gratification, or doing something simply because one can. Unfortunately, as long as there are collectors of certificates who are only interested in saying "my certificates are better then yours", this will continue to happen to common and rare stamps alike.

Wanting the best is not just a stamp related thing. What constitutes the best is of course in the eye of the beholder and it can be offensive to others at times. It happens with collector cars and real estate as well. I have seen gorgeous old buildings modified beyond recognition and cause extreme outrage. They were not in an historic district nor on a register or a list. The modifications met all zoning ordinances, code requirements etc..

As far as the mutilated stamp multiples go I am not saying that the parties involved in the grading and sale are directly responsible but they certainly enable the practice by participating in the process, and they gain financially.

Note: Patriots win AFL East for the 11th year in a row.

How did they cheat this season? Of course it's only football anyway; it's just an excuse to kill each other from brain damage by 50.

I'm glad you think it's funny.......

https://qz.com/1038120/over-99-of-n...rain-damage/

Blocks shown by the OP that were mutilated in the name of 1 grade 100 stamp should not be allowed to have a grade. If perforating the item was not part of the original process then it shouldn't get a grade. These are nothing more than manufactured "gems" and yes, I do understand the difference between the preservation of history vs. the love of money.

Simple... Don't bid or buy these manufactured /non philatelic items. If no one bids on them next year at Siegel and other high end auction houses (hey if you want to bid, bid low!) prices will come down and the cutting will stop eventually. I refuse to bid on them

This issue here is the difference between "ownership" and "stewardship".

If you think you own these stamps, you can burn them in some self-indulgent film, or mutilate them to make a quick buck.

If you see yourself as a steward of these items, then you want to insure that they are organized and cared for so that future generations can enjoy them too.

Unfortunately, our society sees us as "owners" more often than "stewards".

Alas, there will ALWAYS be people whose ego demands the biggest margins or the most ostentatious examples available and who have the means to indulge those desires. So those types of items will always bring high prices.

For me, private property ownership is a cornerstone of a free society and not limited to 'making a buck' or capitalistic egos. I certainly agree that private property rights are a strong inducement for wealth and prosperity but it is also one of the foundational principals of liberty. Allowing the ownership of private property is critical because it restricts the reach of government into our lives. I, for one, want limits on the amount that the government infiltrates into my life. I think that our economic independence encourages empowerment at a personal level.

That said, I also agree that we should be good stewards of the material we own. But this ethical principal pales in comparison to infringing upon private property ownership rights. I do not think that we cannot legislate ethical behavior. Laws are rules and regulations which create a space which allows us to live according to our own personal ethics.

This is similar to trying to force people to care about others by 'redistributing wealth'. Financial freedoms, which previous generations of Americans have fought and died for, means that a person can choose to share or not share their wealth with others. Should an ethical person tithe or give back to others? Yes. But does that mean we should legislate and force people to be more ethical by taking their wealth and giving it to others? In my opinion, a society is not any more ethical under a forced sharing of the wealth.

So should the 'stamp police' be able to knock on our doors and confiscated any of our collections they deemed worthy of being conserved for the betterment of mankind? How do we define which items should be 'protected'? Should it be a crime to be a bad steward of the material we own? If so, it may be a crime to use modern hinges!

In my opinion, the eroding of private property rights or trying to legislate ethical behavior is a very slippery slope. If our society is failing at ethics, we need to identify those things which need to be improved (i.e. church/religion, parenting, family, education, etc.) and stay away from assigning this as a government responsibility.

And this is the value of this thread and having these kinds of public discussions, education. Education is really the only weapon in the war against this kind of dumbass behavior.
Don

Don

It's not a question of the government stepping in and regulating morality, we know that does not work.

What I am saying is that we need to see private property less in terms of as "we are the owner of this" and more as "we are the current stewards of this".

Joe

As far as imperfs are concerned, the value of a 100J should be less than a block of 9. Logically, that only makes sense. Like a quarter the value. If more than (Put any number here. I choose 10%) of the next stamp shows, then there ought to be a 'penalty' grade. Ie: a 100J imperf becomes a 90J with so much of the adjacent stamps showing. 100J simply doesn't make sense for imperf stamps, IMHO. Or, as someone said upthread, call a 100J imperf a faulty block of 9, charge for 9 stamps, and plaster a "FAULT" across the cert. It'll never happen, but I'd send all my stamps to that Cert authority from now on.

I see things a little differently.

Claims about "property rights" trumping other rights, or about not legislating behavior, have always been used to justify the excesses of the free enterprise system. Ugly architecture, cheaply made clothing -- or much worse, adulterated foods and drugs, child labor-produced products, slave labor-produced products, a thousand objectionable things, all got excused because they're only "what people want".

Someone who mutilates 8 stamps to make 1 jumbo stamp is hardly as bad as all that, but they are somewhat bad. What I'd like to know is why do we feel obligated to excuse a seller who mutilates stamps because they have a "right" to do so? We don't.

The makers and sellers of this junk are responsible for what they're doing. Even in so-called free enterprise, you aren't allowed to sell a lot of things. You can't sell tobacco or alcohol to children, rotten food to anyone, clothing made by child labor, stolen or counterfeit goods. Even with some things that are not illegal, social pressure makes you stop doing it. It may not be illegal to buy rare paintings and damage them by putting them through a cheap home restoration, or to tear out classic old fixtures from historic homes, or to tear down famous private buildings – but people would scream bloody murder if you did. That's because we have standards. There are limits on what is acceptable. Why should damaging old and valuable stamps lto make a quick buck be any different?

The fact is "free" enterprise isn't as free as you might think. For over a hundred years, we've regulated it. No more child labor. No more adulterated foods. No more casual use of chemicals. Even altering stamps can get you dragged into court -- because, in reality, you're not "free" to conduct any enterprise you want. If we didn't regulate, the lowest common denominator would always win. Society enforces its moral sense on behavior every day through regulations. If you don't believe me, try making certain videos, lying about the chemicals in the food you sell, building dangerous cars, or altering the stamps you sell. Not allowed.

These mutilated stamps may not violate a law, but don't they violate ebay's standards? As a collector, they certainly violate my sense of what's right. Are the people who do this going to win any philatelic awards for their clever use of "free enterprise" marketing, do you think? I seriously doubt it. If not, why not? I'm sure ebay has rules about selling damaged or counterfeit goods, but I'm 99% sure it's much easier for them to argue that everyone has the right to sell whatever they want. That makes them more money, doesn't it? I wonder if that plays any role in how they operate? On the spectrum of what's okay to sell, at some point you reach the "questionable". Insisting on "free enterprise" and "you can't tell me what I can do" crashes head-on into certain kinds of free enterprise every day of the week.

So, inspired by my right to unregulated free enterprise, I've devised my own plan to profit handsomely from mutilating things:

I've bought up dozens of rare stamps, including the 1p Mauritius, the 3-skilling Sweden, some Chinese red revenues, and a few of the famous 24c upside-down airplane stamps. You'll know these as the same stamps many collectors can only dream of owning. My plan is to democratize them all -- by cutting every one of them into very small pieces and selling those small pieces to collectors at much lower prices. So, if you've always dreamed of owning these rare stamps, and who hasn't, here's your chance! Maybe your piece of a chopped-up 24c C3 will put a tiny wingtip into your album. And next month, stamp albums produced in factories by child labor -- at discount prices. After all, it's what the market wants, so don't get in the way of my freedom.

I blame whoever makes and sells these mutilated items more than the people who buy them who just may not be thinking very clearly. Should I buy a few, myself? What do you think? Do you think I could manage to assemble a second stamp from the remnants of the other eight? I could sell them to unsuspecting collectors. Under truly "free" enterprise, there are just so many opportunities out there!

Roger Taney and Jefferson Davis thought that private property rights were inviolate. They were wrong. In our days, property rights are constrained in various ways - in the UK, the smoking ban prevents your using your premises as you might wish, the "listing" of buildings of historical or architectural interest interferes with your bright ideas on renovation, the outlawing of hunting with dogs stops you from enjoying blood sports on your land.

In thus case, destroying stamps along the lines described in this thread is lamentable, but the damage to individuals or animals or the wider community is minute. It's also, as far as I know, localised, being confined to the US. Concerted pressure on the stamp business - certifiers, auction houses, publications etc - as advocated by others, seems the only way to go.