Subject:
|
Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 06:02:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
580 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
<snip>
> Chris wasn't saying the relationship is not propery.
That's right - he didn't mention the relationship at all - he made claims
about contracts and agreements.
> 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.
What 'property is involved involved in the relationship' is not my concern.
My concern is the property that IS the relationship (again "the personal
connection is every bit as valuable as any other piece of property").
> 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.
But this is creating a different class of property, joint property, which
is treated differently to other sorts of property.
What happened to "The beauty of declaring everything is a property right is
that no special cases need to be created in law" from
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18918
> 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.
Do other pieces of property change their value depending on who takes them away?
Certainly in the example above, there could be a claim for loss of future
income/support.
But you have said that the relationship (or personal connection) is a
property, which has a value. And because its a property, it must be treated
like any other property, and therefore if damaged, can be claimed for. How
can the source of that damage change the value?
Cheers
Richie
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
