 | | 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: 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) <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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) That's right - he didn't mention the relationship at all - he made claims about contracts and agreements. (...) What 'property is involved involved in the relationship' is not my concern. (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) And I wasn't disagreeing with that. (I might actually, in the end, but I haven't found fault with his assertion yet.) I was merely speaking to the contract's nature, as Frank pointed out. (...) Except in another note, I asked about the ability (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) Yes, though a contract may be in place. I would tend to think that there is an implicit contract entered when the child is conceived. (...) Ok, point conceded. I've lost my train of thought on this bit though. Unfortunately this debate which I (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) It might be useful to distinguish individually-ascribed worth from market-ascribed worth. That $1000 bond may be "worth" $1500 to Buyer A, but if you go on the market and say "I'm selling this $1000 bond for $1500," you'll find out what the (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) Apologies Frank, I was actually enjoying reading this particular thread, though it be waaay over my head. I was looking for Locke, Kant, and Hobbes to chime into the thread, but alas... You are probably right about the other--the lines have (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Anyhow, who cares about tax liability in the US? [Re: Idiots, Part Deux]
|
|
(...) The "bubble" taught us that much. :( Anyhow, who cares about tax liability in the US? See: Enron 'bribed tax officials' (URL) report said Enron profited from 12 large tax deals from 1995 to 2001 that saved the corporation more than $2bn." If (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: I've lost my train of thought on this bit though. (...) Absolutely - I've been trying to find some spare time to get in on this one for exactly the same reason. I've tried to raise 'is land property' at (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Buried in that other people aren't contributing their thoughts because they're too wrapped up in the more emotionally satisfying debates about unsolvable situations in the Middle East? Or buried in that _you_ are too busy in the other thread? (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Is it possible to move to an uninhabited planet and start all over? This planet has tangled property rights, but what about some other one? (...) Is it right to exist, or right to exist and be supported, or just right to try to exist and to be (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Vague abstract debate that puts people to sleep?
|
|
(...) The whole "everything can be called property rights" seems so leaden to me. I won't argue it either way - it just seems like a game of semantics to me. What I could add is pendantic: Chris is right from a the single sale point on value, but (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Not a right to support (at least in any but the vaguest of senses) just a right to a place. In what I understand of libertopia, it would be theoretically possible for one person to buy up all the land and not allow anyone else to be there. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Both. I have tried several times to bail out of .debate, but I've never really stopped reading. I do tend to skim some peoples posts, and I think I'm finally getting the self control to not respond to pointless debates, but I still read them. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Vague abstract debate that puts people to sleep?
|
|
(...) It may be just semantics, but I think it's hard to move forward in other realms without having a solid foundation. I know I have changed the way I do things, at least to some extent, as a result of exploring these semantic games more. (...) I (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Hmm, interesting question. Some problems I see: - If the other planet has biological or sentient inhabitants, we would have to decide just what their rights are. Hopefully we would recognize them... - I would have a concern as to how (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Me too. (...) I agree with this assertion too, all goods are created from resources, all resources come from this planet (ignoring meteorites as they are clearly ar a practically infinitesimal resource). Can we all agree on this? I think that (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) The issue quickly becomes conflict of rights. One expects that in Libertopia, it is believed that nobody has the right to kill another person. But by (in theory) buying up all space (air, land, sea, outer, inner, etc), one effectively is (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
I have decided that it makes the most sense for me to stop talking about space in the universe and just talk about land. Bear in mind that I think the argument extrapolates out to all habitable space, but for now, talking about land might be easier. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
Darn, wish I'd seen this note before posting a second ago. (...) That's how I see it too. But that is wicked, not good and just. (...) Convince me. (...) I'm not yet convinced. I'm not ready to accept as fact that humans exist in the unalterable (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Yes, it makes sense. There are certain rights that virtually everyone wants for themselves, so we make a compact with the others in a given group to acknowledge that it is best for all concerned that we grant those rights to all within the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Yeah, that baffles me, too. For any physical entity or object, it seems that "existence" doesn't simply imply "a place to exist," it expressly *includes* a place to exist. Not necessarily this plot of land or that particular country, but (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Uh oh...I was trimming too liberally and misrepresented DaveE's stance. Immediately before his "communistic ideal" comment, I had written "I think I think that land should be a commons, tragedy or not." Totally, my bad! Chris (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Doh! Well, my cool ontological musings remain in effect regardless... Dave! (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Wicked, yes, probably; good? arguable I suppose; just? Hmm.. hard to say. I think I would call it just. (...) Well-- here's an issue, obviously. If you could create humans who didn't have an innate desire for control, then sure, the system (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Or they have to recognize their desires as destructive and seek to curb them. (...) I agree, but I don't see why stewardship rather than ownership necessarily decreases your ability to enjoy privacy. (...) You are in effect saying that the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Hm. I guess I have to question how different is this stewardship you're envisioning versus ownership? What does ownership entitle you to that stewardship doesn't; given that in our current system, the government can confiscate your land if it (...) (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
I think that even with the rules of real estate essentially intact, if we called it and understood it as stewardship rather than ownership it would change the way we think about land-resources. For the better. But I think that several positive (...) (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) If a right is just a legal construct, then why can't it be sold away or limited? (...) If a right arises simply from the people, then I'm not sure a right to exist is compatible. (...) I think we need to explore the foundations of rights. Why (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) I think we need to hold people to some standards. Let's assume that the right to exist does require us to provide minimal support to all. Now, take someone who takes their monthly check and spends it all on booze. Should we give them a bigger (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Hmm, another thought... If "rights" are a legal construct, where does "good and just" come from. Clearly we seem to feel there is some absolute measure of goodness and justness. Without such, you can't judge anyone else's actions. We probably (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Why? Why, in particular is is 'wicked' to make the best deal you can for something. We're assuming that the person you're dealing with is competent and you are not being fraudulent, right? Is selling your body off for spare parts (and thus (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) First, your stance seems to assume that notions like 'competent,' 'fraudulent,' and 'fully informed' are binary in nature and that a person is on one side or another of a clearly demarked line. I don't think that's so. Second, It's still my (...) (22 years ago, 23-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
I'm addressing three of Frank's notes here, not just the one upline from where I'm posting. As a result of my use of "good and just" coupled with the assertion that rights are merely a legal construct, Frank pointed out that we need to know the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
