Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-05-2009, 02:32 PM   #476
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
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.
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.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 02:36 PM   #477
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 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?
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 02:47 PM   #478
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
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!
TomVeil is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 02:59 PM   #479
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
Whose jurisprudence?
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.

Last edited by Strawn; 05-05-2009 at 03:05 PM.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 03:12 PM   #480
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

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.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 03:32 PM   #481
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

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?
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 03:39 PM   #482
Poker879
old hand
 
Poker879's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,388
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72 View Post
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.
People have told him this exactly over and over, and he chooses not to listen and keep asking the same question.
Poker879 is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:13 PM   #483
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

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?
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:15 PM   #484
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by zan nen View Post
Strawn just stop please lol.
lol

Quote:
Proportionality centers on the concept of making the victim whole. He had a comic book, not $500,000.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
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?
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.

Quote:
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?
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.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:17 PM   #485
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Says who? The only person who can put a price on it: the buyer
FYP.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:21 PM   #486
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

So if a buyer and a seller can't agree on price, the buyer's price stands?
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:22 PM   #487
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

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

Quote:
The owner cannot simply set the price of a good to an imaginary value by offering it for sale
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.

Quote:
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 of the property is willing to part with same, the thief cannot unilaterally change those terms and transfer the property to himself at a lower price.
You don't seem to understand the concept of theft? Because you just said a thief can't steal something
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:24 PM   #488
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:
Again, it could be both theft and contract implied-in-fact.
wut? How? If it's a contract, it can't be theft
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:26 PM   #489
Poker879
old hand
 
Poker879's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,388
Re: Inclined to Liberty

stop responding to hiim
Poker879 is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:26 PM   #490
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 Strawn View Post
So if a buyer and a seller can't agree on price, the buyer's price stands?
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****.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:28 PM   #491
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

K, I am done.

Is Gold Money?
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:36 PM   #492
snowden
veteran
 
snowden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,527
Re: Inclined to Liberty

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.
snowden is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:39 PM   #493
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
If he kept the property, he can just return it.
He can't return it. That's part of the premise.

Quote:
If it's a one of a kind item, then the market price is unknown, and the owner is guessing. He clearly guessed wrong.
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.

Quote:
Because you just said a thief can't steal something
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zan nen View Post
K, I am done.
Thanks for starting the tread, Zan.

Last edited by Strawn; 05-05-2009 at 05:08 PM.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:44 PM   #494
snowden
veteran
 
snowden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,527
Re: Inclined to Liberty

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

edit: Does shoplifting just blow your mind?
snowden is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:59 PM   #495
tomdemaine
Just tries harder
 
tomdemaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Social Justice Rogue
Posts: 20,071
Re: Inclined to Liberty

strawn,

What colour in the sky in your world?
tomdemaine is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 05:16 PM   #496
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.
OK, so let him make the case. I haven't seen it yet.
 
Old 05-05-2009, 05:17 PM   #497
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
So if a buyer and a seller can't agree on price, the buyer's price stands?
price = agreement. no agreement, no price.
 
Old 05-05-2009, 05:25 PM   #498
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by zan nen View Post
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.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowden View Post
the idea that you could stop "theft" by putting pricetags on everything is just insane.
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.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 05:29 PM   #499
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 ElliotR View Post
My first inclination is to write a sarcastic post about how evil ideas must be opposed and stamped out at every turn, making sure to thrown in Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot references, but instead I'll say this:

Debating ideas is interesting. In my posts I am not so much trying to persuade the person to whom I am replying as I am either trying to make points that would persuade an objective observer or inviting the person to whom I am replying to convince me by explaining why I am not yet convinced.

To be sure, there are many AC "debates" on here that are nothing of the kind but rather are just shouting at each other, handwaving, and trying to create clever labels so you don't actually have to deal with the other side's points. And there is the occasional outright refusal to discuss/debate. But there are some discussions that are quite interesting, worthwhile, and enjoyable even if it is extremely unlikely that either the person with whom I am communication or I will change our minds about anything.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Borodog
Answer the question.
.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 05:43 PM   #500
snowden
veteran
 
snowden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,527
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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.
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
snowden 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 09:12 AM.


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