On Thu, 10 May 2001, Eric Cordian wrote:
> Tim Writes:
>
> > Such lawsuits are inconsistent with a free society. More generally,
> > the whole idea of torts, outside of contract law, is bogus. The
> > belief that one party can sue another based purely on the notion of
> > "damages," when no contract or consideration or concrete property
> > right was present is bogus.
>
> That would imply that only criminal and not civil action could be employed
> when someone is injured or made less wealthy by the actions of another, in
> the absence of contract, consideration, or concrete property right.
No, it doesn't. It requires concrete evidence of wrong doing, instead of
simply 'feeling wronged' or not liking the 'lifestyle' that another may
engage in, which seems to be the current standard. It would be a return to
the 'what is' view instead of the 'what might be' view.
What Tim is saying I think is that I as a property owner, for example,
have zero obligation to satisfy either the seller of other property or the
potential purchaser of same. If for some reason they wish to increase
their financial position through some act on my part (not being either a
seller or buyer, simply a dis-interested bystander) then my effort should
be compensated fairly. For a concrete example, contrived though it is,
consider the height of my grass and the selling price of my neighbors
house. If he can get say $10k more for his if I mow my yard each week then
that neighbor should be held accountable (in full mind you) for that
expense on my part. Otherwise you reduce others to nothing more than
chatels of somebody elses income. After all, if my yard is responsible for
the sale price of that house, shouldn't I as a neighbor also have a say in
which neighbor moves in? After all I've got to live with them. My
ex-neighbor took the money and ran. If my ex-neighbor sells the house to
some beer drinking slob who, for example, doesn't mow his yard (and since
I'm not interested in selling there is no profit motive to engage a tort
over with that neighbor - and suing them for tall grass would adversely
effect me as I don't like to mow either so a tort is the last thing I'd
want to initiate since I'd be bit by it as well) then I should have the
right to sue the past property owners for their 'damage' to my lifestyle.
'private property' isn't important, it's the cash flow into the society by
commerce that becomes the important primary guiding principle.
> This would seem to be moving in the wrong direction, in a society where
> too many things are already illegal, and more things are becoming illegal
> with each passing day.
No, it's the right direction for freedom and guaranteeing that each person
is in sole control of and responsible for their property alone. It also
returns the country to the democratic ideal that one individual is under
NO(!) obligation to help another citizen with their life goals, their ONLY
responsibility is not to infringe those rights.
The current mechanism based on torts is nothing more than God $ fascism.
Mangement of private property by the community through the courts for the
simple expedient of increasing cash flow via commerce to feed the ever
hungry tax engine.
Tax business, not people, as the founding fathers understood. Anything
else is indefensibel from a ethical or moral perspective.
> We need to replace silly laws with torts, not the other way around.
Actually we need to reduce both of them by better defining what
'individual liberty' and 'personal property' mean in a democratic society
(not that we have that today having sold out our heritage for God $).
> At least torts are paid for by the people involved in the torting.
Yeah, right. A convenient fantasy. The reality is that all of society pays
because it creates a confrontational and litigous atmosphere. The only
segment of society that will benefit are the scum sucking lawyers. Let'm
get a real job instead.
> > (This misapprehension is what is leading to Alice the Property Owner
> > suing John her Neighbor because she believes his unkempt front yard
> > is hurting her property values. Yet can John send her a bill if he
> > plants a beautiful front yard and Alice's apparent property value
> > increases?)
>
> This is a bad example.
It's a perfect example.
> If Alice puts up a sign on her house that says "Danger to Children Next
> Door" because John reads Playboy, and Alice thinks Playboy exploits Womyn
> and Children because she's a Dworkinista, I think John has every right to
> sue the bitch when he gets fired as a Disney VP, and the sexually
> frustrated Oprah fans on his block start telling everyone that he's a
> NAMBLA member.
No, John doesn't. John has a right to sue Disney or any other agent that
'punishes' him based on Alice's 'opinion'. Alice however should be free to
actually speak and publish her 'opinion' without fear of retribution or
result.
If he's not a NAMBLA member, and can prove it, he should be able to sue
every one on his block for the demonstrable damages they have caused to
his reputation. It's one thing to say 'I think he's a member of NAMBLA and
likes to butt fuck little kids'. It's an entirely other thing to go around
telling people 'He is a member of NAMBLA and regularly has little kids
over at his house'.
Note that at NO time should anyones actual speech be monitored, measured,
or otherwise 'managed' by any 3rd party. It simply isn't needed.
> If Alice does this to John on a Website, and perhaps in concert with a
> virtual community of Alices to others as well, and institutes a "child
> safety program" to share her suspicions electronically with LEAs
> worldwide, then I think John has a very good case that all things
> belonging to Alice should be made things belonging to John, and Alice
> should be enjoined from playing with her computer until she learns to
> behave herself.
If it's only 'suspicion' then it's protected speech.
> Just as the First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell
> "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, it does not confer the right to call someone
> a "child molester" in front of an angry mob.
Actually it does. What it doesn't guarantee is any immunity from the
CONSEQUENCES of that act. It says very clearly however, the act of speech
or press itself shall not be regulated.
The reality is the 'Fire' argument isn't about helping potential victims
of such speech, but rather helping shield government employees from
constitutional abuse.
____________________________________________________________________
God was my co-pilot, then we crashed in the Andes.
So I ate him.
Anonymous
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
