.

ALSO, the thief would face increased security premiums and he would have the social stigma of being a convicted criminal, possibly causing him social and professional hardship.

...

Strawn, why don't you just tell us your point. As far as I can tell this example is not only ridiculous, it has absolutely nothing to do with state vs. no state, state provided law vs. market provided law, etc.

The specific AC principle (which isn't specific to AC) is that when somebody steals from you, you get compensated for it. The exact amount of the compensation, when dealing with hard goods like a chair, is part of the trial process.

If I claim my lawn chair is worth $1M, and you steal it, and cannot return my lawn chair, then we go to court and discuss how much compensation is required for my loss. I would claim it's worth $1M. You would claim it's worth $250, which is it's replacement value from a retailer. The judge would evaluate our claims and decide which he thought was fair, or pick a spot in the middle.

So maybe the "specific principle" is plain old common sense.

They don't owe you less than your price. They owe what was stolen, which was a rare comic book not money. That satisfies "one tooth". This is part of the basic principle of proportionality in libertarian law, Strawn.

Tooth #2 would be another identical Batman #1 or whatever. I assumed that he doesn't want that and agreed to keep its market value, $1000. Personally, I would get over the "sentimental value" with a nice thousand dollar trip or something.

Also, this circumstance shows some stupidity on the part of the victim. He claims a sentimental value 500 times the market price, so why is he letting some guy who is offering barely over that into his home and putting the book in his hands at all.

Remember that the terror premium means that an arbitrator will find a % chance of death for the criminal, based on the threat he posed while committing the crime. If you just let the guy walk out the front door with your comic, this would be less. If he returned later breaking in and tied you up, then tortured you to get the combination to your safe, it would be more. You could then barter for more money to not enforce that % (#bullets/#chambers) for the terror premium.

My point is that I'm looking for the AC principle whereby you offer an item of your property to someone for sale, and then they take it, resell it, and end up owing you less than your asking price.

This is not about state vs. no-state.

I bolded it for you. Case closed. Ready for a new chapter?

You can't demand an arbitrary amount of money in compensation from a thief. This should be basic common sense.

Why do you think that such a principle should exist?

.

Yes, I got that. I just don't see why you keep emphasizing this as if it's the most important piece of information in the world. It's not.

There is no such "AC principle".

The common legal principle of an implied-in-fact contract, which is created when a party accepts a benefit that it is possible to reject.

A offer of contract was explicitly made to the thief by proposing the sale of the lawn chair to him for $50 trillion. The thief then acted to accept that contract by taking the item.

It seems there could be an AC principle that voids this voluntary contract afterwards. If so, I would like to know what it is.

So your claim is, if I offered a lawn chair for $1M tomorrow, and somebody stole it, they'd be charged as if they stole $1M from me?

Strawn, game over you lose. The thief didn't agree to pay $X or $Y, he refused to pay what was required for a voluntary transaction to take place and stole whichever item. He owes that item, not some amount of money. The only way to not owe that item later is for the victim to agree to a certain amount.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_in_fact_contract

Doesnt really seem like an implied-in-fact contract to me. Just because the seller said that the chair was worth 50 trillion, it doesnt mean the thief agreed.

I go into a store and see a cheap vase you can get at wal mart listed for 50 trillion dollars. I decide to pick it up and look at it and it drops and breaks. Do i owe the owner of the store 50 trillion dollars? I saw the price tag but still decided to take the chance in picking it up.

SWEET! I'm going to go through my apartment tonight and put $50T price stickers on everything. That way if I get robbed I'm super turbo RICHIFIED

Needs more love.

No because in Statopia third-party laws coercively enforced through government villainy would bust such a voluntary agreement after the fact.

It's not because the seller "said" the lawn chair was worth $50 trillion, rather he made the apparently interested buyer an offer (in contract) to the effect of: "This here lawn chair means a lot to me, but I'd be willing to let you have it all to yourself right now, or as long as this for-sale sign is taped to it, for a mere $50 trillion, due within 30 days of when you take it, with the one extra condition however that all sales are final."

Next morning the lawn chair is gone, because the apparently interested buyer drove by during the night and took it (for-sale sign and all), yet the check never arrives.

How much would a court implementing the principles of AC consider the apparently interested buyer-turned-thief owes the seller?

Not in the current Dark Age of the State. How about after the dawning of Aquarius, when no one need ask, "Why can't I be free?"

That's not a voluntary agreement. It's just not. Plz stop saying it is.

I already explained how the actions of the parties constitute a contract (voluntary by definition) implied-in-fact. If you disagree, then where's your argument (meaning something more than "it's just not")?

"An implied-in-fact contract is an agreement where the consent of the parties is expressed by conduct other than words."

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract

Strawn, I want a unicorn before you keep posting in this thread. Failure to comply means you owe me a unicorn.

give me the black dude too

And the buyer says "i disagree to those terms", and then steals it. There is no contract here.