Why don't you go ahead and make whatever point you're trying to make.

How is the state magically going to make this situation any different?

Because I'm still trying to make the point I'm trying to make.

It isn't. What is your decision, AC judge?

You said that the same comic book sells for $1,000, so we assume that is the cost to the criminal to replace it. A price is not property. Only the same book needs to be replaced.

The argument that will come is that there is some actual physical characteristic of the book that makes it unique, like a ring stain from a coke bottle you sat on it after first reading it 50 years ago. Another scenario would be the Mona Lisa or some arguably irreplaceable item.

I don't see how the state would change anything either, except making things worse. You would get $1000 and that is it AFAIK.

Nobody else attributes a $500,000 price to this type of comic book. The market price is $1,000. In fact whatever you have done to the book giving it extra sentimental value may have made it worth less than $1,000. If you should be owed $500K, why stop there? Why not $50 trillion, or request that the thief die.

If you, unlike the rest of the market, want to place a $500,000 value subjectively on your individual comic book with the bottle stain, you would have to insure it for that amount. An appraisal would only go to establishing a real market value. The thief owes you the book only, not that price of the appraisal 3 months back, as it may have changed. He certainly doesn't owe you a unicorn just because that is the only thing you would trade it for.

AC courts don't recognize the value someone puts on his property beyond the value the marketplace puts on it?

I don't see where the victim can set any amount of value to stolen property he wishes. If you steal my lawn chair, can I claim it was worth $50 trillion in sentimental value Strawn? There may be some room to maneuver with negotiating a value for the terror premium.

If you inform the thief before the fact that your lawn chair is worth $50 trillion to you and he takes it anyway, why should he not have to pay you that much in ACland?

I already answered your question. Are you going to just keep asking it over and over until you get the answer that's on your script?

Strawn,

1.)The victim and criminal would both pick a private court and agree to abide by its ruling.

2.)The victim would make his case that the comic book is worth 500K and ask for that much in damages. He could offer sentimental, market or whatever other arguments he'd like to.

3.)The defense would make his case the comic book is worth $1000.

4.)The judge would take all things into consideration and make his ruling.

This really isn't any different than what happens now EXCEPT that the two sides get to pick a court that both feel is fair. Although I suppose if the plaintiff chose to drop the criminal charges, could decide on a private arbiter to decide the case (Judge Judy FTW!)

EDIT: Part of the judge's considerations will be common law precedent of cases involving items of sentimental value.

I have another hypothetical. Aliens from mars come and want to kill us all. They have unstoppable weapons and we are completely at their mercy. We are all doomed. They are murderous and see us as nothing more than ants and will kill us all. How will AC deal with that huh big buys? If ACLand is so great, it should handle that situation just fine right?

Rubeskies,

Thanks for the reply. As a follow-up, I ask you to consider the lawn chair example by zan nen, which actually serves the purpose better.

I'll repeat my question about the lawn chair (even though you quoted it already in your answer about the comic book), for the sake of clarity.

If you inform a thief before the fact that your lawn chair is worth $50 trillion to you and he takes it anyway, why should he not have to pay you that much in ACland?

SLOW PONY IS REALLY ****ING SLOW

bump for strawn

Because in AC land people haven't lost their ****ing minds? if you're serious, this is a ******ed question

why should he not have to pay that much in stateland? here's a hint, it's the same answer in AC

careful calling him ******ed, i might have to report u

Who did I call ******ed? Question, not person. Reading comprehension ftw

Hint: Thinking something is worth X doesn't make it worth X

Are you trying to compare the lawn chair example to eminent domain?

I'm looking for the specific AC principle(s) whereby someone can take your lawn chair and owe you a price other than what you were asking for it.

Who said it was an argument? I was making an observation.

What does "asking for it" have to do with anything?

I think you're trying to look for some loophole to get tacit consent in through the backdoor. It appears your gambit has failed. Try something else IMO, you're beginning to appear pretty desperate/pathetic.

Because when looking at making restitution, actual value is considered, as opposed to magic-land I have a $50M comic book value.

Again, just because you say your lawn chair is worth a million dollars doesn't make it so.

If you're talking about why restitution is MORE than the value (and if you are, I wish you'd just say so), then there's compensation as punishment for the original theft.

The phrase "asking for it" refers to the price at which the lawn chair owner has informed the thief he is offering his property for sale.

He would be forced to give back the lawn chair, plus damages. If he no longer had the lawn chair, then there would be some discussion of what the fair value of the lawn chair is, the same as in the real world.