Stamp Debate

[BenMiller]

This is all about being responsible for your actions.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>
Modern day trick is: If you can get people to talk long enough about “the logic” of why it is OK to be harmful because of “the benefits” of causing harm, you no longer are responsible for doing whatever harm you want.
<o> </o>
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time…

I didn't say it's "ok" to be harmful! Obviously you're responsible for any damages you cause. I'm just curious if the automatic increase in the victim's overall wealth as a direct result of your action can constitute a payment.

 

[chuckchuckit]

You would owe him $50K for your harmful actions, period. If he benefits additionally from the harm caused, that is to his benefit, not yours.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
“You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time…”
<o></o>
BTW, the person who said that quote once walked 3 miles to return a penny he overcharged someone. His concern was about honesty. Maybe that is why they called him “Honest Abe.”

 

[Jonmo1]

And why should it be decided by what I want you to pay?

That's just symantics.
I Want vs. what I think the law should provide.

Forgive me if my choice of words was not up to par with the context of the thread.
Please allow me to rephrase..


If you bought a collectors item for $100
And a year later it's value has dropped to only $50
And then I broke it.
I believe that you (or anyone) would be upset if a Judge/Jury decided that I only had to pay $50.

In that scenario, it's expected that the purchase price is what is to be repaid.
If that's true, then the reverse should also be true.

You can't pick and choose whether to pay the purchase price or current value depending only on which is higher..

 

[BenMiller]

That's just symantics.
I Want vs. what I think the law should provide.

Forgive me if my choice of words was not up to par with the context of the thread.
Please allow me to rephrase..


If you bought a collectors item for $100
And a year later it's value has dropped to only $50
And then I broke it.
I believe that you (or anyone) would be upset if a Judge/Jury decided that I only had to pay $50.

I don't think so ... drop the collector's item thing for a second (no pun intended). Say it were a car. It goes down in value after 20 years and is now worth $10,000. I should pay the $30,000 it used to be worth?!

 

[Jonmo1]

I don't think so ... drop the collector's item thing for a second (no pun intended). Say it were a car. It goes down in value after 20 years and is now worth $10,000. I should pay the $30,000 it used to be worth?!

Absolutely, because that's the amount that I paid for it, and that is what I lost because of your actions.

 

[xenou]

My take is that you must consider the value of the object at the time that it was destroyed, which at that time was $50,000. To destroy an object someone owns based on what they will have when they no longer own it might be a special case of some sort, in which case the laws of reparation must be fitted to meet the exceptional circumstance of the situation. I cannot see how you are entitled to go about destroying one of two stamps in another's possession on the reasoning that it does them no harm.

Reparation is a way of making up for a loss, but it's not the same as if the loss never occurred. It may be that you can repay the worth of the stamp, but you can never really restore the stamp. The law uses reparation as a substitute for what is really wanted and cannot be: the return of the stamp to its owner. Hence you are really responsible for the act, which is restored by means of a financial substitute (money). Your crime is not really about the financial state of the owner of the stamp. Indeed, we know nothing about what the future value of one or two of this stamps will be 10 years from now - which is why the best that can be done is to look at the situation when the crime occurred.

Some judges may imposes even a stiffer fine - you destroyed the future potential of two rare objects on the reasoning that you could predict the future value of one rare object, and arrogantly decided you could make this decision for the owner? Then call it just? Do we need a Talmudic argument? How about:
We would never admit it was correct to steal a little girl's doll and give her another saying "one is good as the other". Then also we cannot condone the destruction of a man's treasured possession saying, "you don't need it".

 

[Jonmo1]

If the stamp is appraised to be worth $50,000.
You don't actually possess that $50,000
You only possess the potential of $50,000

It's only worth 50K if you sell it right now.
But it wasn't sold, it was destroyed.
There was potential for it to be worth 50k
But because of fluctutions in the Stamp Collectors market,
there was also potential for it to be worth only 20K, or perhaps 100K
There's no way to know how much it may have been worth at some unkown time in the future when it might have actually been sold.
Because it can never be sold since it was destroyed.

The only $ amount that is abolute and undeniable, is the purchase price.
And that is the $ amount that the owner of the stamp has actually LOST.
Because the owner never possessed the 50K to begin with.


Also, just because an appraiser says it's worth 50K, doesn't mean it will actually sell for 50K.

 

[Gerald Higgins]

I disagree with jonmo1 in saying that the compensation should be based on the original purchase price. I think a very important consideration for setting the compensation should be "What would it cost to put the victim back into the situation they were in before the damage occurred ?"

So, for example, if I bought a car 50 years ago for $200, but it's now worth $200,000 because it's vintage, and BenMiller destroys it, then the compensation should be in the region of $200,000 (plus whatever other costs there might be in actually getting hold of a replacement). And the same works in reverse. For example the price of LCD and plasma TVs has come down alot in recent years. If BenMiller smashed one that had been bought 10 years ago for $2,000, and it could be replaced for $500, then I think $500 would be appropriate.
This doesn't solve the stamp issue, as by definition the original could not be replaced.

Edit to add - Sorry jonmo1, you posted post #27 while I was writing post #28.

Take the stamp analogy to it's logical (but not impossible) extreme. The victim could quite conceivably have purchased the original stamps for 5 cents each. If purchase price is all that matters, does that mean the compensation is only 5 cents ? This seems unfair.
You might factor in general inflation, but even that might take you to only a dollar or two. Which also seems unfair.
So, you might factor in special inflation for stamps, but if you were willing to do that, why not factor in special inflation for this specific type of stamp ?
After all, imagine a slightly different situation, where there were originally THREE such stamps, and the victim owned only two. Let's say the third was traded regularly between other parties. That could give you a meaningful figure for what the other two were worth, without having to rely on some appraiser's guess.

 

[BenMiller]

Btw, just a clarification: I'm only playing Devil's advocate here, I agree 100% that you should pay for the stamp. I do believe that you should pay (in a regular case) the value at the time of the damage, but I guess that's another debate

 

[chuckchuckit]

I concur with Xenou. And after a court would be done trying to show the hard way on how to be responsible for your actions, one might want to ask themselves: Am I sorry I caused this other person harm? Or am I just sorry that I had to pay?

Those questions might reveal the condition of one's own heart towards others...

BTW "Honest Abe" now has his picture on all our pennies.