Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-04-2009, 02:46 PM   #426
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,618
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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.
Quote:
Again, just because you say your lawn chair is worth a million dollars doesn't make it so.
.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 02:52 PM   #427
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poker879 View Post
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.
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.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 02:53 PM   #428
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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.
...
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 02:56 PM   #429
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

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.
SL__72 is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:01 PM   #430
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,618
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
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.
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.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:01 PM   #431
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

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.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:03 PM   #432
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72 View Post
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.
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.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:05 PM   #433
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

I bolded it for you. Case closed. Ready for a new chapter?
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:05 PM   #434
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,618
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
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 offer.
You can't demand an arbitrary amount of money in compensation from a thief. This should be basic common sense.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:09 PM   #435
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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.
Why do you think that such a principle should exist?
SL__72 is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:13 PM   #436
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7 Small Groups vs. Large Groups
A COMMON ECONOMIC ERROR when assessing the effect of a social event or a proposed action is the failure to account for all effects—current and future, obvious and not-so-obvious. In a small setting, it is easy to envision all the effects of an action, thereby giving a proposal a more accurate evaluation. Reasoning and common sense (intuition) can be valuable tools when predicting the outcome of a proposed policy or event within a small group. However, such tools become far less reliable when assessing outcomes in larger groups. When we interact with others in small groups, our instincts, for the most part, tell us without much deliberation, that we can achieve our goals with less effort and conflict when the means to those goals align with “the Golden Rule.” In a family, neighborhood, company, business relationship,or similar small group, most of us will adopt “the Golden Rule” as our guide. However, we tend to abandon that concept when it comes to a large political group.

Should a neighbor need help, we would never consider going around the neighborhood threatening those who do not pitch in. We instinctively understand that charity is voluntary, and we are generally eager to help when we see someone in need. In a small setting, we view the use of force as a means to help others to be the antithesis of charity. However, in a political arena, we find ourselves condoning, even promoting, the use of physical force as the proper means to extract aid. And when such force is used, we paradoxically refer to it as an act of charity and compassion. Virtue and cooperation are instinctive codes of conduct that have evolved over time because they provide mechanisms for survival and reproduction superior to those based on a code of coercion.

Since our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived in small groups, generally fewer than fifty members, for millions of years, our inherited common-sense instincts are not as keen when large groups are involved. An act that one would consider reprehensible and nonsensical if conducted in a small group may become quite acceptable in a large setting, because our brains are not as adept at sensing and evaluating large group interaction.
.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:27 PM   #437
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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.
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.
 
Old 05-04-2009, 03:29 PM   #438
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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.
There is no such "AC principle".
 
Old 05-04-2009, 03:32 PM   #439
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72 View Post
Why do you think that such a principle should exist?
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.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:36 PM   #440
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,618
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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?
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:41 PM   #441
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

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.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:51 PM   #442
Zoogs
grinder
 
Zoogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quite Unsure
Posts: 581
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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.
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.
Zoogs is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:58 PM   #443
TomVeil
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
TomVeil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nowhere, Man
Posts: 19,374
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
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?
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
TomVeil is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 04:09 PM   #444
Nielsio
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 23,400
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn View Post
Needs more love.
Nielsio is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 05:10 PM   #445
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
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?
No because in Statopia third-party laws coercively enforced through government villainy would bust such a voluntary agreement after the fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoogs View Post
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.
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?

Quote:
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.
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?"
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 05:17 PM   #446
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
No because in Statopia third-party laws coercively enforced through government villainy would bust such a voluntary agreement after the fact.
That's not a voluntary agreement. It's just not. Plz stop saying it is.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 06:04 PM   #447
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubeskies View Post
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 is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 06:08 PM   #448
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Strawn, I want a unicorn before you keep posting in this thread. Failure to comply means you owe me a unicorn.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 06:10 PM   #449
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty



give me the black dude too
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 06:13 PM   #450
Zoogs
grinder
 
Zoogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quite Unsure
Posts: 581
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
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."

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

 
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive