Subject:
|
Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:33:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
502 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
No. There may be an agreement, but Frank said clearly in
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18918 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 claim, value exists in the relationship. ("the personal connection
is every bit as valuable as any other piece of property")
The point is the end of the relationship, not the end of an agreement which
may also have existed between those in the relationship.
The other relationships which make a family also, according to Frank, have
value, yet there is no equivalent contract between, say, brother and sister,
or great-aunt and great-nephew.
> 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.
In these examples, one's *interest* in the value of the asset changes or you
may receive additional property, but I don't think you've demonstrated that
the value of the property changes. (ie $1,000 bond siezed by your
government, doesn't become $1,500 when they compensate you for its seizure.
The $1,000 bond is still $1,000, and the government pays a penalty of $500 -
that penalty doesn't revalue the property.)
Cheers
Richie
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
