Subject:
|
Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:01:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
729 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > 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.
>
> Except in another note, I asked about the ability of a parent to do so with a
> kid...I haven't gotten to your response if there was one.
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.
> > > 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.
>
> No, that's silly. Value is what someone is willing to give for something, not
> what's printed on the face of it or what an expert tells you it is worth. If
> someone gives you 1500 for a 1000 bond, then *obviously* it is worth 1500.
> There are investors who make small fortunes by specifically buying real estate
> in zones that are projected to be wiped by new freeways and stuff so that they
> can bilk the government when they eminent domain the land. They know that the
> value will rise unreasonably and they want to be on the receiving end.
>
> Is $10 "worth" of stock still worth $10 when someone is willing to pay you only
> $5 or as much as $20?
Ok, point conceded. I've lost my train of thought on this bit though.
Unfortunately this debate which I feel is actually worthwhile to me is
getting burried by some other debate. It seems like everytime you raise
the "should land be property" issue, which would be new ground for
debate, some other debate starts up and burries this one under the
tiring Middle East or religion debates. This is what continually
frustrates me about .debate and makes me want to just wash my hands of
the whole thing.
Frank
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | 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)
| | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
