The thief, having been noticed of the owner's asking price, agreed to it through his actions because 1) the only legitimate way to obtain property offered for sale is by paying the owner's asking price, and 2) the judicial reconstruction of a transaction so that an illegitimate act will cost the perpetrator less, and the victimized property owner more, is considered illogical in jurisprudence.

Whose jurisprudence?

The AC one you're making rules for? Or the state one whose concepts you use when convenient, and disregard as inapplicable when not?

In ACland, everybody is really really dumb clearly. This is a huge market opportunity imo. I just tell somebody at a garage sale that an item is $10,000. When it ends up in their car later, well, the only way it could get there is if they agreed to buy it! WOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Pretty much all of them. Disallowing the criminal the fruits of his crime is fundamental.

Shifting the cost of a theft from the villain to the victim by allowing the construction of the thief's actions as illegitimate (the only legitimate way to obtain property offered for sale is by paying the owner's asking price), when everyone is responsible for following the law, is to let a criminal benefit from crime.

Strawn just stop please lol.

Proportionality centers on the concept of making the victim whole. He had a comic book, not $500,000. He is owed the comic book, not $500,000. What you are arguing is definitely not libertarian theory and I am pretty sure not any statist legal system either.

Can you go ahead and make an actual case about how this could ever possibly be considered an implied-in-fact contract as opposed to straight forward theft? What sort of interpretation needs to be given here to meet that standard? What rational person considers leaving and coming back to take an item without communicating intent to be a contract as opposed to theft?

People have told him this exactly over and over, and he chooses not to listen and keep asking the same question.

So stop responding to his nonsense then people. He actually had a somewhat valid concern and could have made several other better objections, but just kept banging his head against the wall today.

Strawn, I want to go back to your answer to discussion point #1 (If money grew on trees, would we all be richer?).

You said, whoever owned the trees would be. So who "owns the trees"? It is undoubtedly the state with their monopoly on counterfeiting. You once also claimed that the state is necessary for money to have value. Milton Friedman swore that gold pegged to $35 in 1971 would fall to ~$5 when demonetized. What is it nowadays, near $1,000?

lol

He had a $500,000 comic book. Says who? The only person who can put a price on it: the owner, in this case by a public offer of sale before the fact.

Who has the authority to tell an owner he should part with his property for less than his asking price?

Possibly it's both. In any case, the only legitimate way to obtain property offered for sale is by paying the owner's asking price. The thief cannot simply revise down the price of a publicly offered exchange to market value by stealing the object, and then upon capture have his lower price honored in a court that upholds the right of voluntary exchange.

Again, it could be both theft and contract implied-in-fact. Once the thief has been duly noticed of the terms under which the legitimate owner is willing to part with his property, the thief cannot unilaterally change those terms and transfer the property to himself at a lower price.

FYP.

So if a buyer and a seller can't agree on price, the buyer's price stands?

If he kept the property, he can just return it.

If it's a one of a kind item, then the market price is unknown, and the owner is guessing. He clearly guessed wrong. Without a negotiated price, this object has no market price, which is why a judge needs to determine what that is.

You don't seem to understand the concept of theft? Because you just said a thief can't steal something

wut? How? If it's a contract, it can't be theft

stop responding to hiim

No transaction price is needed since no transaction will take place. The involuntary action of theft is initiated regarding an item, not an asking price.

Answer my question about you supporting a monopoly on counterfeiting. I won't even view your posts if people stop quoting you. I doubt any statist on this forum is willing to stand up for your bull****.

K, I am done.

Is Gold Money?

people don't instantly become insane if AC becomes the societal norm.

if drastically changing the legal principles that we have now lead to ludicrous outcomes continually then that court would be outcompeted.

He can't return it. That's part of the premise.

No, he's not guessing. He is declaring. The price of a given item of property is what its owner wants for it in exchange.

In a way, yes.

A thief can't steal something he's been offered anyway. All he can do is buy it. In taking the item he implicitly accepts the seller's terms, because they are the only terms that can apply to the transaction without regulatory authority.

Thanks for starting the tread, Zan.

the idea that you could stop "theft" by putting pricetags on everything is just insane.

edit: Does shoplifting just blow your mind?

strawn,

What colour in the sky in your world?

OK, so let him make the case. I haven't seen it yet.

price = agreement. no agreement, no price.

What action on anyone's part was involuntary? The seller already offered the item to the thief through due process notice. All the thief did was take it, thereby completing the terms of sale (which the seller has an absolute right to establish). How is this different than a "normal" sale in terms of what the thief owes the seller?

Putting a price tag on something only converts a theft into a purchase where voluntary transaction trumps all else. It's different with a state, which coercively asserts regulatory power over third-party exchanges.

The only legitimate way to obtain property offered for sale is by paying the seller's asking price. The thief, once noticed of the seller's terms, cannot simply revise down the price of the offered exchange to general market value by stealing the item and having his lower price honored by a court in the form of restitution. This happens under state oppression, sure, but could not where voluntary exchange has assumed its proper place.

We don't need no stinkin' arbitrarily appointed mods. The ****** who screams, "You owe me a unicorn!", as the thief carries off his lawn chair, will be ostracized.

.

Bob steals Dave's car.

Dave finds out.

Dave takes Bob to court where Dave discovers that the car has been chopped up already.

Dave says that he had a pricetag of a million dollars on his 94 civic.

Judge lolz at Dave and awards the sum of what the market price of the car is plus some more bc maybe Dave did have some sentimental value attached.

Bob pays Dave (or has the money taken from his bank account by the bank in accordance with the ruling or whatever)

Dave bitches that his car is worth a million dollars.

Nobody cares.

-fin