 | | The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
This is awesome news... not only might this little war we're about to have finish up the UN as an active force, it might well do in NATO too. From the text of a speech by Senator John McCain (R., Ariz.) on February 8, 2003, at the Munich Conference (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) Chris wasn't saying the relationship is not propery. He was saying the contract is not a property, it is documentation of the agreement of what property is involved in the relationship and how to handle disolving the contract. Chris also added (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Capitalism (was: People are idiots...)
|
|
(...) Hmm, if land is not a good, then what rules should govern trading it? If you always have a right to some land as part of your right to exist, then what stops you from "selling" your land, and then demanding a land grant because you're now (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) I would agree with this refinement. It also better supports the idea that the wife terminating the relationship is different than a murderer terminating the relationship. (...) Right, it's not so much that the value of the relationship (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) No. There may be an agreement, but Frank said clearly in (URL) that "The relationships that make a family a family are property". The example of marriage may also have a contractual element which may also have value, but according to Frank's (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) Small world. My family had a dog named Taffy when I was a child. Also, don't worry about becoming crotchety at 35. When I was 21 I was always telling my dorm mates to turn down their music. And I'm sure that if I had had a lawn I would have (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | astonishingly light? [Re: Its about time someone put this concept in print.]
|
|
(...) I can't see the wood for the trees! I found this page: Afghanistan War Produces High Civilians-Killed-Per...mb-Dropped Ratio (URL) passage: ==+== After surveying numerous reports on civilian impact deaths caused by bombing, I estimate the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I agree with Frank on this point. The contract isn't exactly a property (well, the paper and ink are, and the IP that goes into it may be, but the contract in the sense that Frank means is merely an agreement. The agreement itself (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) Why would the value of the relationship change depending on who took it away? Do other pieces of property change their value depending on who takes them away? (...) I don't think that matches with what you've said earlier: you declared the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) I would say yes. To some extent this is already covered by divorce law. I'm pretty sure I've also read about cases where someone sued their ex for basically this reason. I'm not sure one would win very often, but there certainly are cases (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) So if my wife wanted to end our marriage, I should be able to sue her for loss of my relationship 'property'? Richie (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Capitalism (was: People are idiots...)
|
|
(...) I think that one must agree to either: a) because people have a right to exist somewhere, space/volume/area/land is not a good in the normal sense and we have to figure out what it is and how we handle it, or b) because space/volume/area/land (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) The box is already open. This proposed law is just reminding us that it is open. But we don't want to close it. Lawsuits are the civilized way of settling disputes. (...) But what basis do you use to hold the cat thrower responsible for his (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) No addendum needed, and mostly the system is already there. Judges do have a lot of flexibility. Unfortunately, over the years they have been given less flexibility. Also, countersuits already handle some of the problems. Mostly what has to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) Now if there was an addendum to all laws that says "You will get slapped hard if we find that your lawsuit is frivilous", then I'm completely in support of said measure. However, who deems (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) Fundamentally, I see no problem whatsoever in animals having and being given property rights. As to what happens to the estate when Fido dies without issue? What happens when your kid who inherited your estate dies without issue? We have (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Capitalism (was: People are idiots...)
|
|
(...) I agree that existence is a property right (and truly the most fundamental one). This does imply a right to a place to exist. However, assuming that the resources of the universe are limited, clearly one doesn't have an unlimited right to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) And I'm pointing out that we live in society more and more intent on a "Sue or be sued" mentality. So I was around 11 years olf. We had a dog named Taffy. Taffy was a wonderful dog who came to a very unkind end when some construction material (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) half measure. It is still true that only animals who have a steward that wants to push back will be remedied. So people can still throw flaming cats of highway bridges, as long as they're strays. (...) So you think that when a vet or a (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | WOMD [weapons of mass *deception*]
|
|
(...) Given that civilians were targeted in WW2, I don't see how the two can be compared? In Afghanistan, we had the ability to prosecute the intervention with far less civilian casualties [that fact that far less than 2,000,000 died is not a (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
