Subject:
|
Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:17:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
691 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> 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
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 been drawn long ago
and no one is going to move now that we're firmly ensconsed into our own
little rose-coloured WVs.
So is it now the time to call the other issues 'flogged horses' and let
Frank and co. proceed on ideas and debates about 'property rights'?
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) 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. (...) Ok, point conceded. I've lost my train of thought on this bit though. Unfortunately this debate which I (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
