-6 votes

Why do some folks have a beef with usury and foreclosures?

It seems like a perfectly legitimate service to me. If I don't have the money I need, a company will loan it to me on the condition that I pay it back at an agreed upon schedule. If I fail my side of the bargain, I lose. What's the problem with that?

For the record, it would be great if no one ever bought what they couldn't pay for outright, but it still seems legit, business-wise.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

do not worry all

Soon not many will be able to afford a loan anyway.

donvino

It's not the foreclosure, it's that banks don't get foreclosed

The homeowners get foreclosed on, but the banks get bailed out.
Think about it this way. The fed loaned 16 Trillion to banks at nearly zero interest and we still have the same problems and a slow economy. They expected that the banks would lend, people would spend, economy would grow. The second part of that is the issue. With a huge debt load, people can't borrow or spend.
Had we taken a fraction of that 16 Trillion, we could have paid off every mortgage, student loan and credit card in the U.S.
Credit Default Swaps would expire worthless, banks would receive full payment, Americans would have nearly zero debt. People would spend, economy would improve.
I'm not supporting bailouts, but we spent the money anyway, we could have at least solved the problem.

Usury

19“Do not lend at interest to your
brother, interest of silver, interest of
food, or interest of whatever is lent at
interest.
20“To a foreigner you lend at interest,
but to your brother you do not lend at
interest, so that YHUH your Elohim
might bless you in all that you put
your hand to in the land which you are
entering to possess.
(Deuteronomy 23)

“At the end of every seven
years you make a release of debts.
2“And this is the Word of the release:
Every creditor is to release what he
has loaned to his neighbour, he does
not require it of his neighbour or his
brother, because it is called the release
of YHUH.
3“Of a foreigner you could require it,
but your hand is to release whatever is
owed by your brother.
4“Only, there should be no poor among
you. For YHUH does greatly bless
you in the land which YHUH your
Elohim is giving you to possess as an
inheritance,
5only if you diligently obey the voice
of YHUH your Elohim, to guard to
do all these commands which I am
commanding you today.
6“For YHUH your Elohim shall bless
you as He promised you. And you shall
lend to many nations, but you shall not
borrow. And you shall rule over many
nations, but they do not rule over you.
7“When there is a poor man with you,
one of your brothers, within any of the
gates in your land which YHUH your
Elohim is giving you, do not harden
your heart nor shut your hand from
your poor brother,
8for you shall certainly open your
hand to him and certainly lend him
enough for his need, whatever he needs.
9“Be on guard lest there be a thought
of Beliya‛al in your heart, saying, ‘The
seventh year, the year of release, is near,’
and your eye is evil against your poor
brother and you give him naught. And he
shall cry out to YHUH against you and
it shall be a sin in you.
10“You shall certainly give to him and
your heart should not be grieved when
you give to him, because for this reason
YHUH your Elohim does bless you in
all your works and in all to which you
put your hand.
11“Because the poor one does not
cease from the land. Therefore I am
commanding you, saying, ‘You shall
certainly open your hand to your
brother, to your poor and to your needy
one, in your land.’
(Deuteronomy 15)

The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. (Proverbs 22:7)

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

But there is more

Lev 27:30-31

And all the tithe of the land – of the
seed of the land or of the fruit of the
tree – belongs to YHUH. It is set-apart
to YHUH.
31 If a man indeed redeems any of his
tithes, he adds one-fifth to it.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

MBS

I haven't read all of the comments but I will submit this: Until you have studied REMIC laws, Mortgage Backed securities MBS, CDO, CDS, etc.. you really don't have a clue about this issue at all. either there was no financial transaction or the loan has been paid off several times over because it has been sold 4, 5 maybe more times to different trusts, the title chains are broken, pretend lenders are stealing the homes of citizens with absolutely no verification of "standing to foreclose" being proffered.... the first time the loan was in default, the insurance kicked in and paid it off, hence CDS or Credit default swaps... I could go on and on having been intimately involved in this massive fraud, on the wrong side.... go to http://livinglies.wordpress.com/ and do a bit of reading and then weep... entities trying to foreclose on property have no skin in the game, no financial commitment in the transaction.. no association what so ever.. probably the biggest scandal out there other than the bankster rip off of the wealth of the nation...

Has anyone got their home back free and clear

Wondering It all sounds good but how many out there
Have gotten Ur home back or have been given the deed
Due To fraud committed on u If so please let me know
And if u used someone or handled it urself.
Thxs

Drvab

Spooner vs. Tucker...Bastiat

Spooner vs. Tucker...Bastiat vs. Proudhon.

Even though Tucker and Proudhon both said interest was immoral, they also said that consenting individuals are free to engage in immoral behavior.

"I protest that when I criticized... the complex of institutions of which property is the foundation stone, I never meant to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose." -Proudhon

http://praxeology.net/FB-PJP-DOI.htm

If You're Getting Wealthy From Usury Laws & Foreclosures,,

You must be a one percent part of the American population, or a paid SHILL !

RON PAUL IS MY PRESIDENT !

beesting

"A pound of flesh" from

"A pound of flesh" from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice - History shows that usury was a dirty, despicable trade. Only in recent times (past 200 years) has it been promoted as necessary for business, when in fact very untrue. So how was business conducted without usury? Partnerships – you want to start a business – I have money – you have the know how – we will be partners for said period of time. With usury banks don’t care if you fail. Partnerships want your business to succeed. - Similar to apprenticeships back in Ben Franklin’s time. Ben agreed to teach someone the printing business, they agreed to work for him for said period of time for some type of wage. At the end of the apprenticeship he would usually help start that person up in business or they were free to start their own. There are still a lot of regions in the world were usury is considered dirty (middle east).

$hylock wants - the pound of flesh.

+1. kcop, glad to read your post. many had forgotten this quote. please say more, thanks. I may add - later.
Shylock is the name of the jewish money-lender who resented Antonio, a Christian trader who lent money gratis, i.e. without interest. Shylock found an opportunity and set a (debt)trap for Antonio. Remember, the loan contract was made without coercion, with mutual consent, yet this deal has been condemned among the sane.
best wishes.

I add to this story

I add to this story a historical fact, that usury was forbidden by all major religions. However, when someone was lending "across" the religions, it was OK. That is why Jewish population in Europe, became the lender to the Christians of Europe. That is why most bankers in the world are of Jewish religion. Peace.

Historical Fact *.

+1 Mirek, thanks for recording the historical fact*. That was the time when man had faith, revered the Torah, Scrolls & Scriptures, considered them sacred. Because scripture was corrupted /edited by the jewish priests a 'license' was created to charge interest from non-jews. This practice of usury was the cause of resentment & animosity against jews in europe, - this continued for centuries till the time of Hitler.
Now the Holocaust story is sacred. In some countries of europe if you raise questions about it you could go to jail, the charge being = "Holocaust denier". Our world has really changed - in strange ways.

It was much easier

to recognize the fraud of usury back when economies were small and isolated. One only has to envision a dozen people living on an island and trying to implement a monetary system where 11 people's lives are quickly controlled and enslaved by whomever got elected to play banker.

Mutually Beneficial Loans Are Fine

As some have pointed out, if it is based upon mutual consent (meaning both parties view it as beneficial) then there is nothing wrong with it, and to outlaw/interfere with such behavior is tyrannical.

However, the Federal Reserve has in-effect outlawed private loans. By fixing rates at 0%, nobody can compete with the Fed. Therefore all loans originate with the Federal Reserve, and there is no free market for capital.

This means that your savings (your personal capital) can never be loaned out in a competitive way, and returns on ALL of your investments will (over time) approach zero. This is what creates a self-reinforcing economic depression, because when the return is zero, there is no risk worth taking, and everyone suffers.

To have truly free markets, and the prosperity that flows from capitalism, you must obviously have a free market for capital, which requires usury.

usury is fraud

When your bankster agrees to loan you a pile of "money" to buy a house...

That bankster risks NOTHING. I repeat ... a mortgage is made of ___________

... nothing!

Poof!

Air!

Your mortgage "capital" was made from nothing through fraud.

FRAUD is the basis for every single mortgage in our current fiat-currency usury system.

The money for your mortgage was created out of thin air. No capital was risked. No wealthy individual risked his hard-won fortune to finance your mortgage. The "money" was created for your mortgage out of nothing through fraud.

Let me repeat that and let this fact sink into your brain:

The money which financed your home "purchase" ( actually more like a lease with strings attached ) ...

... was created through organized fraud through the "miracle of banking"

Fraud for U$ury.

+1. remove the incentive-(usury) to commit the fraud-(fake money).
this creation of massive amounts of fake money is to generate "Interest", which they call profit or income, or return on 'investment'. Thanks for your input, +1.

Freedom from U$ury

[[ The bankers today extract usury and pile up wealth. The Federal Reserve is the greatest banker of all. Under this economic system of usury that enslaves, people are deprived of their wealth and productive capacity through excessive income taxes and inflation ]]

http://www.silverstockreport.com/essays/Freedom_from_Usury.html

In the United States, slavery is illegal. In the United States, extortion is illegal. But usury is legal. It's quite a contradiction. Would the economy come to a halt without usury? If you think about it for a while, I'm confident that you will conclude, as I have, that there is no economic reason to need usury.

(I posted before an article "Usury Enslaves", below.)

Republicae's picture

If you understood economics,

If you understood economics, especially in terms of a free market, then you would realize that your conclusion is incorrect; there is a very real reason for interest. I challenge you now, as I have before, to explain just how economic functions can occur without interest. Do you actually understand just what would happen to the economy, at least to a free market, if interest were banned?

Many people, including you, have a complete misconception of what interest is within a free market, it is little more than the overall health or weaknesses within the market. It is the rate of business profit demonstrated as people within the market save, invest, employ people, manufacture products and distribute those products within the market…it is the expression of the entire market, all the economic movements of human action, a amalgamation of every possible factor playing its role, not only in economic terms, but in social and political terms. Interest denotes not only the health and profitability of the market, but the productivity as an economic measure; it even denotes either the responsible or irresponsible actions of governments. It provides for the balance of trade and regulates that trade in ways that are simply not possible under a managed economy or the so-called free-trade agreements which, are, in reality, nothing more than yet another form of a planned, centrally managed and manipulated market, but there is nothing free about such markets.

The fact is that without the vital function of interest within the market, the people would be far more than just deprived of their wealth and productive capacity, they would eventually be destitute for the market could not function without interest.

Interest relates specifically to the major functions that form an array of exchanges that take place every moment of every day through the voluntary agreements of people who seek to exchange one form of economic good for another form. In a similar way, a person who is seeking employment enters into a voluntary agreement with an employer, with the employer setting the wages based upon the skill of the employee or the going wage rate within the market for a give position.

Now, it is apparent that you have confused two distinct forms of economic processes, one being the free market which, if allowed, sets the rate of interest through a myriad of various mechanisms of exchange and the other is what we see around us, that system is one of Mercantilism. Mercantilism is where one party will always benefit at the expense of another party who doesn’t have the same political or financial connections as the other.

Since within any type of economy each person involved within an economic exchange will place a different degree of value on a good, whether it is an actual product or money, there is a time element involved with any form of exchange within the market. Now, because money evolved from a barter economy, money is essentially nothing more than a substitute for a given good or product. Money is the element of indirect exchange rather than direct exchange of those products. Thus, money is essentially no different than any other good except in the fact that the demand for money is prevalent within the economy due to its exceptional exchangeability. As long as there are choices in the market then the market is free, but the moment there are interventions into the market then there are distortions that arise which, if allowed to continue, create even more distortions and eventually a major dislocation of economic functions.

Competition, also vital to a free market, allows for the advancement of living standards by rewarding those who are innovative, skilled, and have the incentive to not only better their own lives, but also the lives of others who benefit from not only their products, but their ability to invest within the economy, thus spurring employment and more innovation, raising the standard of living. Contrary to the operations of free market operations, the Mercantilist market uses coercion, fraud, and exploitation and yes, what you consider usury to benefit at the expense of others. But the usury that is employed by the Mercantilist system is an artificial creation of a group of men who are dedicated to reaping the benefits of official government sanctioned redistribution, it is separated from market functions and eventually will collapse. Such a system always leads to a reduction in every economic function, such as production, investment, savings; the stock of capital and thus the results is a decrease in the overall standard of living.

If you want to see an economic system that essentially distorted, restricted and banned the free market functions within a country, including interest, then look at the former Soviet Union. There was essentially no actual use of market functions since the entire system was centrally planned by people that had no concept of either market functions or phenomena, or the importance of such functions and phenomena. Since pricing was not a factor neither was the understanding of value, because of this there were no private production and hence no exchange mechanisms. Like pricing, interest plays a very important role because it allows for the relative valuation of goods and services. Without pricing or interest it is impossible to have a valuation of goods and services functioning property within the market. Now only that, but even the distribution of labor is affected by either the artificial manipulation of pricing or, as you seek to do, the banning of certain functions that is essential to economic activity.

There is no possible way for anyone in Washington, New York or in any country to actually calculate prices, costs, interest or how to property manipulate those factors to the point that the markets can function adequately enough to maintain viability. The evolution of a Mercantilist system is similar to other forms of socialism, but in a much more obscured way. Such a system, like the socialist system and, in fact, like the system that you seem to promote, the right of private property and the title to that property is no longer defended, no longer respected or upheld on an official basis.

You talk about slavery as though it equates to interest, but slavery is the violation of a person’s right to his own person, his labors and his property. Essentially, based on your assertions, you would deny the right of a person or person’s property by banning the ability of voluntary contract between the lender and the borrower. You ideas would not only decimate the material holdings of people, condemning them to a world of poverty, but also would demoralize their spirit, relegating their lives to one of futility and ultimately despair. Your ideas are essentially no different than the entire “social justice” crowd or a form of socialism that is completely ignorant of the processes of the free market or the rights of the individual to control his property, the value of his labor, his inventiveness, free cooperation or engaging in free, private exchange and contracts.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

U$ury = Testy & Tough.

Republicae, many thanks for your detailed replies, I was not avoiding your posts, have read all of them. You may have noticed I posted lots of copy-pasted material, references, links - with small comments. Now - I will make a few notes.

1. Your posts have been well written, you have argued with reason, and have remained civil, but tough, defending interest, challenging, & confident in your abilities of verbal karate (]:)

2. we are on DP, a forum for free-market, liberty, support for Ron Paul & his message of freedom, non-intervention, etc. Many ideas have been expressed here, secular & religious, - we learn & become richer in the process.

3. Your posts receive a lot of + votes, & my posts get - votes, few +. I call usury nasty & cruel, after seeing its effects, and a lot of study & exchange

4. U$ury is a tough topic, needs a lot of stamina to argue, so many facets /or perspectives have to be considered. You may not know this - but eventually - we find usury to be intrusive. Maybe I will go to top of page - with a brief note about House Rules.

Republicae's picture

Republicae, many thanks for

Usury is not that tough of a topic, the fact of the matter is that there are two very different subjects at issue here; one being the fact that we currently live under a system that has been carefully crafted to benefit a select few through Mercantilism, the other is the essential nature of economic principles which, through successive generations, have been observed and notated as natural outcroppings of the amalgamation of human action within the market. Interest just happens to be one of those principles that arose through this amalgamation of human action in response to that action. Without these economic principles or if those principles are distorted or prevented from functioning the results are destructive to the overall viability of economic progress.

Interest is actually one of the few measures of economic health, it is a signaling system for the economy and allows for timely decisions to be made by not only individuals, but also businesses. Without it fully functioning within the economy, there are so many negative consequences to everyone that it is difficult to fully grasp. We currently get a clue from the actions of the FED, its manipulation of interest rates is one of the prime contributing factors of every boom and bust, these booms and bust, in turn, create a fertile ground for the redistribution of wealth in this country, as well as the destruction capital and an increase of disparity between the rich and poor. The only way to narrow that huge and growing gap is to bring back, to restore or allow not only free market principles to properly function, but also allow the full competition of currencies until this country is once again held to the accountability that sound money demands.

As with sound money, market interest, when allowed to actually be governed by the market and not central bankers, also demands accountability, not only from bankers, but also from government. Market interest signals the people when governments are not acting in fiscally responsible ways, it is a determinate factor in the balance of trade between countries and under a sound monetary system, it will signal any funny business the government might be doing with monetary policies that affect the market and the people. Additionally, interest under a free market with a sound monetary system helps in preventing war. Since governments under a sound money system must raise the money to wage war instead of simply printing it, governments must either tax or borrow, neither option under a sound monetary system are easy or pleasant for governments therefore, under such systems war becomes an actual effort and is costly rather than cheap and easy as through a system of deficit spending.

The fact is that under a fiat monetary system there is no real need for any form of taxation on the federal level, the only reason for it is a matter of social control, to enforce the legal tender laws and redistribute wealth. The use of interest in this system is indeed as fraudulent as the fractional reserve and the Federal Reserve system itself, of that there is no doubt. The difference between real market based interest and the current system is night and day, but interest in the free market is so vital to a healthy and prosperous economy. Without out it, the free market and the principles that allow it to function properly, we will see a very poor people who have lived in a facade of prosperity rather than real prosperity.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

amalgamation of human action?

....lower end of human nature set in motion?

Perhaps my question is naive, but just wondering if the *solution* would turn the tide in the other direction where 'greed and avarice' would gradually collapse and we, as a society or world, would at least be headed in a better direction as far as human nature and action.

You are so far beyond me in your understanding of and ability to explain these topics and I truly am appreciative. I am reading Thomas DiLorenzo's new book "Organized Crime" (among other things). A lot of information and an "easy" read. Have you read it?

fonta

Republicae's picture

When I speak of the

When I speak of the amalgamation of human action I am, of course, speaking in economic terms, it is the sum of human action functioning daily to provide their daily needs, to strife toward their economic goals, making decisions moment by moment, a myriad of choices economically.

As long as humans are, well, human, I am afraid that the various characteristics of their human attributes, both good and bad, will remain with us, there is no solution to such attributes. However, in a free market there are indeed, fewer avenues of greed, avarice and corruption. Most of what we have seen, in economic terms, that nurtures such attributes are closely associated with official patronages, favors, protectionism and sponsorships that stifle competition, broad opportunities and economic soundness. With the power of government, there is an ever-increasing propensity to abuse the relationships that are formed in close proximity with government. If you read the history of the latter portion of the 1800s, you will see that several, such as J.P. Morgan, could not compete fairly in the open market therefore, he and many others, used their influence to sway the political powers in this country to create a much more favorable atmosphere for their plans.

While there were some who were Mercantilists around the timing of our country, such as Hamilton and Clay, those Mercantilist plans were relatively subdued by the spirit of Liberty. It was not until Lincoln that the true heinous plans of Mercantilism was put into place, the centralization of government through the conquest of the Free, Sovereign and Independent States of the South and then through Reconstruction. Since that time, we have seen a virtual assault on every aspect of what this country was intended to be in the hearts and minds of the Founders.

I will pick up a copy of DiLorenzo’s new book….thanks!

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

"In the United States,

"In the United States, slavery is illegal. In the United States, extortion is illegal. But usury is legal. It's quite a contradiction."

Slavery = infringes on the rights on people who have not conzsented to the deal (else, it'd just be called "employment" or "volunteering" or "an internship")

Extortion = infringes on the rights of people who have not consented to the deal (else it'd just be called "a gift" or "charity")

Usury = both parties consent

There, no more contradiction.

And before you say "but usury often doesnt involve consent" or "but the people are consenting to one deal and given another ina bait-and-switch", then clarify that youre against "fraud" and "bait and swtich" transactions. But being against "fraud" is something that I am against in ALL trasactions.

So are you really just against "fraud" and would agree that "All non fradulent transactions among consenting indivuals are allowed to stand, weather they involve usury or not"?

Or would you be against usury even in instances where there was no fraud or coercion involved? If so, please justify what gives you the right to tell me and my friend what sort of contract we can or cannot sign regarding him lending me money?

i think i understand you, evan

You say since everyone agrees or consents then it is ok. Tell me something, the people at the Batman opening in Colarodo agreed to go into a movie theater unarmed. So who is responsible for those deaths?

No that has to be the weakest,

and I mean weakest, strawman attempts I have ever seen in my entire life.

Come on. Those people paid willingly to go watch a movie. They did NOT pay willingly to get massacred. You can cast blame on the fact that these movie theatres and Aurora in general is a gun-free zone which creates a giant pocket of victims.

You blame the piece of shit who committed the murders for committing the murders. He is responsible, and if he has any accomplices or anyone hired him to do it, so are they.

As for this entire topic, interest in a free market economy cannot be stopped. If I offer to lend my own hard earned money at 10% and someone says "yes, I accept this, I will pay you 10% interest per year and if I default you can seize whatever I have signed off on as collateral", then there is nothing immoral about this at all.

However, the comments about current banking are right. Banks are not lending money they have, they are creating balance sheet entries out of thin air and using tangible collateral against it. This is fraud under any rule of law. It is immoral. These people should be rotting in jail.

Even if you had fractional reserve warehouse receipts being issued on deposits versus full reserve banks (where all parties in the partial reserve transactions consented to the practices), all you would get is a market discount due to the true underlying value of that receipt - i.e. if I'm only holding 90% reserves my warehouse receipt/money is going to be worth about 8% less than Joe's bank which holds 98% reserves. Depositors demand transparency because there is no mandated systemically-weakening insurance like the FDIC (which subsidizes reckless banking practices and weakens strong banks by forcing higher premiums on them).

I will demonstrate: if I pay 0.4% FDIC premium on my deposits and I am an 80% reserve bank, I might make a grand total of 8% return and pay out 5% of my entire gross earnings, whereas a bank with a reserve of 10% will get a gross revenue of 50% of capital base at 5% interest on the average loan, so they are only paying less than 2% premiums on their earnings. Once the overleveraged bank finally goes under, it stops paying the premiums because it has nothing to pay with, the depositors get refunded from the insurance pool (in which there is something like -$12 billion right now, just so you know), and the healthy banks premiums spike up to cover the losses that just got booked. All at the point of a gun, to boot (if you are bank and don't pay FDIC you will go to jail).

Interest is not evil if both parties to the contract consent to the terms. If there is no fraud, it is a legitimate contract. Currently, it is ALL fraud, because no bank is lending deposits, they are creating balance sheet entries from nothing.

Leave the childish strawmen rattling around upstairs. It's intellectually embarrassing for everyone on this page when you type them out.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Progress is precisely that which the rules and regulations did not foresee. - Ludwig Von Mises.

the silly Coreadrin

The only strawman agruement being made is yours. You are claiming I have said something that I have not said only to throw insults. That's a strawman. Truly pathetic.

I think we agree. But i just

I think we agree.

But i just want to clarify - and correct me if you disagree - what is immoral and what *should* be illegal is:

1) The Fed

2) Legal Tender Laws

3) State-Sanctioned Fractional Reserve Banking (let's leave the debate over free banking among consenting parties for another time - suffice to say *state sanctioned* FRB is bad.)

But not specifically "usury".

Provided 1, 2 & 3 are eleminated, there is NO reason to prevent any two consenting adults in a free society from agreeing to lend/borrow money amongst themselves at whatever terms they set.

It's quite depressing that

It's quite depressing that precent of people on DP who truly understand the libertarian theory of self-ownership and the non aggression principle is only like 50%.

The other 50% is people who are simply *against* banksters, globalists, anti-americans, or whatever... they know who they *hate* but they really lack a consistent philosophy that would allow them to form their own conclusions from first principles. Unless Ron Paul has a sound byte or quote on it, they simply are at a loss on how to feel about the issue.

Ron Paul has value for being the most effective marketer of libertarian philosophy. But the whole point is one is supposed to, at his urging, learn the philosophy to be able to truly understand self ownership and the NAP. Not simply memorize a bunch of quotes and youtubes.

give it a rest, evan

Your philosophy is not real.

Well ...

obviously there was a breech of contract on that transaction and there may be a remedy thru civil litigation.

Assuming that the state has not immuned theaters from liability because they have outlawed guns in movie theaters.

If that is the case then a moral hazard exists and there is no remedy.

Carry on.