Subject:
|
Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:35:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
505 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > Richie Dulin wrote:
> > > So if my wife wanted to end our marriage, I should be able to sue her for
> > > loss of my relationship 'property'?
> >
> > I would say yes...Of course there's also the consideration of
> > the conditions under which the relationship "property" is given. • <snip>
> > If the government's view of marriage
> > is just a contract, then the wife withdrawing the relationship can be
> > dealt with under contract law.
>
> I don't think that matches with what you've said earlier: you declared the
> 'relationship' a property. Surely a contract of marriage would be a property
> in addition to the relationship. The wife withdrawing from a relationship
> would therefore be under the termination provisions of the contract AND be
> additionally liable for destruction of the husband/wife relationship.
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
should, and usually does, have terms of redress clearly spelled out if one side
should violate their end of the deal.
The only thing I would change about Frank's verbiage is to declare that the
property is not given, but mutually formed. The relationship property between
two (or more?) people is a shared venture to which the participants have
equal(?) ownership rights. If the contract specifies what happens when one
member wishes to disolve the relationship, as it should, then there's no need
for additional liability.
If you want to borrow money from me to begin a small business and I'm not
satisfied with the business' assets as collateral, then I may require that you
collateralize your home in addition. When your business fails, as most new
businesses do, your home has no logical connection to our resolution of your
business debt, but because we included it in the contract, I can foreclose on
you. It's just like that with the "relationship property."
> > The ex wife taking that relationship
> > away is far different than a murderer taking it away (and an adulterator
> > taking it away is somewhere in the middle).
>
> Why would the value of the relationship change depending on who took it away?
That's not what he meant. As you can see from my explanation above, the wife
is an interested party in the relationship. What that grants her is flexible
and ought to be specified in the contract, but surely it grants her something
more than an outside party like the murderer. I don't think the adulteress is
any different from any other ex spouse. If the parties want her to be, then
they need to specify that in the contract ahead of time.
> Do other pieces of property change their value depending on who takes them away?
Yes, absolutely. If the government (in the US) seizes your property without
claiming you had drugs, then they must pay you about 1.5 times the FMV for that
property (in my experience). If the bank seizes it because you didn't pay your
bills, then your interest in the property is severely limited. If a stranger
seizes your stuff, then you have every right to recapture it. The "value" to
you is different in each of these scenarios.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
