Subject:
|
Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:24:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
565 times
|
| |
|
|
Richie Dulin wrote:
>
> 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.
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 a crucial bit that the relationship is
jointly held property, and I would argue that as a default, assuming no
contract to the contrary, that either party may disolve a relationship
without penalty, thus destroying that joint property. However, if a
third party comes along and does something to damage the relationship
(such as murder one of the parties), then the injured parties do have a
property loss that they may seek redress for.
> 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.)
I agree with you here.
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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. (...) (21 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 (...) (21 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
