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, 06:15 PM   #451
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Anyhow, to get back on topic:

A doctor is mowing his grass and notices a commotion down at the corner. A kid was riding his bike and a car hit him. The doctor rushes down and:

A: Gives aid without thinking twice.

B: Shakes down the other neighbors standing around for fees before or after giving aid.

Why should one approach be right in the neighborhood but another be right in a larger scale?
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 06:16 PM   #452
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 Zoogs View Post
And the buyer says "i disagree to those terms", and then steals it. There is no contract here.
Thanks for stating the obvious. I mean that genuinely.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 06:19 PM   #453
Zoogs
grinder
 
Zoogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quite Unsure
Posts: 581
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by zan nen View Post
Thanks for stating the obvious. I mean that genuinely.
Haha, well everything else has failed.
Zoogs is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 06:20 PM   #454
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoogs View Post
And the buyer says "i disagree to those terms", and then steals it. There is no contract here.
Who did he say "I disagree to those terms" to, the nocturnal bunny rabbits? When the seller and the apparently interested buyer-turned-thief last parted company, the offer was left open.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 06:24 PM   #455
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

I want my ****ing unicorn
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 07:16 PM   #456
tubasteve
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
tubasteve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: f*** city
Posts: 14,291
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Who did he say "I disagree to those terms" to, the nocturnal bunny rabbits? When the seller and the apparently interested buyer-turned-thief last parted company, the offer was left open.
HEAD ASPLODE
tubasteve is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 07:57 PM   #457
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Well, at least the Death Star analogies don't seem so silly now. I think we can consider Strawn as having done the politics forum a favour by presenting the silliest analogy in the history of the Internet.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 07:59 PM   #458
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

btw, I suppose we should congratulate Strawn on knocking down his strawman.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 08:18 PM   #459
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
btw, I suppose we should congratulate Strawn on knocking down his strawman.
I put a price tag of $1,000,0000,000 on that just before he destroyed it! I demand monies and ponies!
TomVeil is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 09:32 PM   #460
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
Well, at least the Death Star analogies don't seem so silly now. I think we can consider Strawn as having done the politics forum a favour by presenting the silliest analogy in the history of the Internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
btw, I suppose we should congratulate Strawn on knocking down his strawman.
I'm afraid little Zurvan spends far too much time being a pompous ass and pays far too little attention to diligently composing logical posts.

Considerable room for improvement.

D+
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 09:35 PM   #461
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Strawn: You made up a ridiculous argument and acted as if you proved something.

Fail.

Last edited by Zurvan; 05-04-2009 at 09:35 PM. Reason: I'll stop being a pompous ass when you post something worth responding to
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 09:40 PM   #462
Zoogs
grinder
 
Zoogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quite Unsure
Posts: 581
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Im actually still confused on what you're trying to say with the whole seller buyer thief scenario.
Zoogs is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 10:11 PM   #463
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

I don't necessarily know where the discussion is going, just the sense there is a logical problem that needs exploring.

It seems that where property rights and voluntary agreements are supreme, whatever personal value you set on a unique (implying scarce in some capacity) item of your property becomes the market value of same when you offer to exchange it for that price, and no one has the authority to impose a different value on it. It they don't like your price, they don't have to buy. Of course, if someone, say, destroys it by accident, there is no implication of acting to override your valuation (because they did not act in a capacity which acknowledges your terms), and market value will unfortunately have to suffice as the liability.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 10:17 PM   #464
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Market value isn't the price at which you're willing to sell. Not an expert, but according to Wikipedia, it's the price where demand is highest. For our purposes here (a single, unique object), I think we could call it a price at which a sale could be made, which implies both parties leave happy.

In the case that the object is destroyed or stolen, obviously the owner should be compensated for his loss. That does not mean that the destroyer/thief has to pay whatever number the owner says. If the two can come to an agreement with a private negotiation, there's obviously no problem. If not, then a third party (ie, a judge), gets involved to mediate the dispute. Using pretty basic common sense, and probably some research in to the market for similar items, he could come to an agreement that - even if it doesn't make both sides really happy - is fair.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 10:39 PM   #465
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
Market value isn't the price at which you're willing to sell. Not an expert, but according to Wikipedia, it's the price where demand is highest. For our purposes here (a single, unique object), I think we could call it a price at which a sale could be made, which implies both parties leave happy.
Okay, market price is better because market value implies an equivalent exchange already happened.

Quote:
In the case that the object is destroyed or stolen, obviously the owner should be compensated for his loss. That does not mean that the destroyer/thief has to pay whatever number the owner says. If the two can come to an agreement with a private negotiation, there's obviously no problem. If not, then a third party (ie, a judge), gets involved to mediate the dispute. Using pretty basic common sense, and probably some research in to the market for similar items, he could come to an agreement that - even if it doesn't make both sides really happy - is fair.
If someone accidentally destroys the object, they did not have purpose to do so and therefore neither could they have acted in cognizance of your offer. No contract is implied, so either market value or litigated liability applies. If, on the other hand, they act with notice of the price at which you are making the object available for exchange, they must abide by your terms if they deprive you of it.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 10:55 PM   #466
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
If, on the other hand, they act with notice of the price at which you are making the object available for exchange, they must abide by your terms if they deprive you of it.
Isn't the fact that they've stolen it an explicit rejection of your terms?

I've done another read of the wkipedia article on this. I think it would be an interesting argument in a court where a thief is arguing that he stole, and the victim is arguing it was the acceptance of a contract where the thief didn't pay.

However, here is a key point from Wikipedia, which is a quote from what appears to be an important legal case

Quote:
That decision described "an agreement 'implied in fact'" as "founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding."
I think that by showing up after a discussion took place (even though no explicit disagreement took place) and removing the item when the owner wasn't around doesn't meet this standard. Again, this appears to be an explicit rejection of the terms offered.

It would be awesome if a lawyer could actually clear this up. But from my view, the common sense result here is that the value is set by an arbitrator/judge, and not at the whims of the guy who had it stolen - even if his whims came pre-theft. This is based purely on the fact that the goal of a judge is to come to a fair decision for all parties.

ETA: The key point in the quote is "in light of surrounding circumstances" imo. The situation you described is clearly theft with the surrounding circumstances. If the seller offered the item and the person picked it up and walked away without comment, you may have a case, but, I think even then it seems more like theft than agreement, and for a transaction of that size, this sort of contract may be considered invalid.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 11:08 PM   #467
Zoogs
grinder
 
Zoogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quite Unsure
Posts: 581
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Yea, this. If the buyer/theif had bought 5 similar items from the seller before for the sellers asking price, then stole one, i think the seller would have a case the buyer/thief owed him his asking price, even if it was well above market value of the item.
Zoogs is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 11:17 PM   #468
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

The key difference is that in Stateland, a person's claim to his property can be legally (if not morally) overruled through the actions of a government judge with other priorities.

However, in ACland I understand that no one has a superior claim to your property than you do, until you transfer ownership through voluntary exchange.

In the latter scenario therefore, a thief simply cannot act in disregard of your offer. The price you assign the object is the only legitimate price it can be transacted for, and no power is recognized as being able to revalue it.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 12:29 AM   #469
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
The key difference is that in Stateland, a person's claim to his property can be legally (if not morally) overruled through the actions of a government judge with other priorities.

However, in ACland I understand that no one has a superior claim to your property than you do, until you transfer ownership through voluntary exchange.

In the latter scenario therefore, a thief simply cannot act in disregard of your offer. The price you assign the object is the only legitimate price it can be transacted for, and no power is recognized as being able to revalue it.
OK, so according to the "seller" the thief owes the seller forty xillion dollars.

Now what?

All we're talking about here is a bunch of opinions. The fact that A thinks B owes him X doesn't mean people C, D, E and F also have to believe the same thing.
 
Old 05-05-2009, 06:44 AM   #470
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
The key difference is that in Stateland, a person's claim to his property can be legally (if not morally) overruled through the actions of a government judge with other priorities.
And what's to say that in ACLand, a mutually agreed upon judge can't overrule the arbitrary and malicious value a victim of theft assigns to an object?

Quote:
In the latter scenario therefore, a thief simply cannot act in disregard of your offer. The price you assign the object is the only legitimate price it can be transacted for, and no power is recognized as being able to revalue it.
Cannot legally act in disregard. He has stolen it. At that time, mutually agreed upon judge will decide the level of compensation. Because it's an arbitration process designed to be fair to both sides, in the case of a seller with inflated views of the value of his own property, the judge will not award him a trillion dollars for his lost lawn chair.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 01:09 PM   #471
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn View Post
OK, so according to the "seller" the thief owes the seller forty xillion dollars.

Now what?

All we're talking about here is a bunch of opinions. The fact that A thinks B owes him X doesn't mean people C, D, E and F also have to believe the same thing.
If plaintiff A can make the case that B owns him X on principles all ACists accept, then everyone will pretty much have to agree. That's the idea anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
Cannot legally act in disregard.
What I meant was that the price the owner sets follows the object regardless of whether the thief even knows about it, much less acknowledges it.

Quote:
He has stolen it. At that time, mutually agreed upon judge will decide the level of compensation.
An inalienable right of property implies the final authority to set its price. If someone besides the owner can set the price of an object, property rights are not absolute, and you're back under the state.

Quote:
Because it's an arbitration process designed to be fair to both sides, in the case of a seller with inflated views of the value of his own property, the judge will not award him a trillion dollars for his lost lawn chair.
The bad guy voluntarily waved his right to fair, and accepted the property owner's existing published assessment (whatever that may be), when he chose to violate a fellow ACist's inalienable right to property.

If someone can simply steal an object valued by its owner many times higher than market price, but only owe compensation of market price (plus a few penalties), the owner's right to determine the terms on which he will exchange his property is not absolute, and there is a higher authority which can overrule the owner-property relationship.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 01:16 PM   #472
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
If plaintiff A can make the case that B owns him X on principles all ACists accept, then everyone will pretty much have to agree. That's the idea anyway.
The point you are missing, I think, is that he doesn't owe him X, he owes him the item that was stolen + some other compensation for the trouble he caused/etc. If he can't return the actual item a judge will determine what fair compensation is. What the victim claims the missing item was worth to him is certainly on factor the judge would consider, but I'm sure a much more important factor would be the item's market value.
SL__72 is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 01:29 PM   #473
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
An inalienable right of property implies the final authority to set its price. If someone besides the owner can set the price of an object, property rights are not absolute, and you're back under the state.
False dichotomy itt

Quote:
The bad guy voluntarily waved his right to fair, and accepted the property owner's existing published assessment (whatever that may be), when he chose to violate a fellow ACist's inalienable right to property.
No, he didn't. He waived his right to some amount of his property that he owes to his victim as compensation.

Quote:
If someone can simply steal an object valued by its owner many times higher than market price, but only owe compensation of market price (plus a few penalties), the owner's right to determine the terms on which he will exchange his property is not absolute, and there is a higher authority which can overrule the owner-property relationship.
You are ascribing something to AC that doesn't exist. I will resist calling that a straw man and assume it's an unintentional misunderstanding, despite having corrected you on it already. Absolute rights to your property does not mean what you say it means.

The thief still has rights to his property. Some of that property is owed to his victim as compensation for the theft. The amount that is owed to the victim is not determined by the victim. It cannot be, otherwise the victim could take an unreasonable amount as compensation, which is effectively theft.

Because we have a fairly untenable situation when two individuals disagree on the value of an object, an arbitrator is brought in to determine its true value. The victim could argue his lawn chair is worth $1M to him, but I think he'd be hard pressed to find a judge that would agree to take that much money from the thief for compensation - which is effectively aiding the victim in stealing from the thief.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 01:49 PM   #474
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
The amount that is owed to the victim is not determined by the victim.
Of course. The amount that is owed to the victim was determined by the thief and the victim together. This happened when the thief voluntarily transacted for the property after being noticed of its price, which the owner has an absolute right to set as long as he does not force anyone to exchange with him.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 01:56 PM   #475
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

You're back to your implied in fact contract theory? Even though I showed that doesn't really apply here?

Quote:
I think that by showing up after a discussion took place (even though no explicit disagreement took place) and removing the item when the owner wasn't around doesn't meet this standard. Again, this appears to be an explicit rejection of the terms offered.

It would be awesome if a lawyer could actually clear this up. But from my view, the common sense result here is that the value is set by an arbitrator/judge, and not at the whims of the guy who had it stolen - even if his whims came pre-theft. This is based purely on the fact that the goal of a judge is to come to a fair decision for all parties.

ETA: The key point in the quote is "in light of surrounding circumstances" imo. The situation you described is clearly theft with the surrounding circumstances. If the seller offered the item and the person picked it up and walked away without comment, you may have a case, but, I think even then it seems more like theft than agreement, and for a transaction of that size, this sort of contract may be considered invalid.
Just because you're asserting that the two came to an agreement doesn't mean it actually happened. No reasonable standard would say that those two people agreed on a price, and the buyer just happened to come by & pick it up when nobody was looking, and then forgot to pay.
Zurvan 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 09:55 PM.


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