Stamp Debate

[xenou]

That's pain and suffering, and future lost wages.
Completely different scenario.

Did you in fact just say one could be compensated for money they don't have, haven't yet received, but might have received in the future had you not done this harmful deed ... sounds suspiciously like compensation for the value of the lost possession, at market prices (in this case, the price of labor over time).

 

[Jonmo1]

Dang you guys are fast...

But it is a different scenario.

 

[xenou]

Yes, different - there are other considerations (the loss of a limb is irreparable even with the monetary compensation). But similar insofar as money is a substitute for what was lost (earning potential, value of stamp) and can be used to replace, to some extent was was lost (earnings, new stamp).

I think you could abstract this back another step - what is money? Basically it's a barter system, reduced to an easily transferable exchange medium. The value of the stamp is the same as the value of anything that the owner of the stamp would accept in exchange (another stamp, a car, an all expense paid trip to Monaco) assuming that a willing buyer would give the same. So it's nothing to do with money except in the abstract sense - we have become accustomed to money as the way to "value" our possessions. I believe that the stamp owner, other stamp collectors, stamp appraisers, and (most likely) judges would be willing to accept that the value of the stamp can be put in dollar terms with at least enough accuracy to render a judgment in the, admittedly somewhat peculiar, case of the crazed stamp destroyer.

Interestingly, at certain times in history even money has lost value to the point of becoming worthless (at which times, the stamp might be a much better possession than literally buckets full of money, and "worth" more in the open market for goods). This is why some invest in rocks - they think that when the paper becomes worthless the tangible property of certain metals dug up from underground will be a better thing to own - silver, or gold.

 

[BenMiller]

Interesting point - according to this view, what I mentioned before about paying with a case of mailboxes as opposed to cash would actually be a better option, as objects are what intrinsically have value, and money merely "represents" those objects.

 

[Jonmo1]

The only thing that gives money any value is the fact that we believe it has value.

 

[Marbles]

The person who owned the stamp came about it through a huge amount of circumstances.
The same for the person who ripped it up.
Trying to work out the ethics assumes we free will, instead of just being part of the Big Bang. An Explosion.

 

[xenou]

The only thing that gives money any value is the fact that we believe it has value.

An interesting example of this fact occurred not that long ago:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/10/04/130329523/how-fake-money-saved-brazil

Though we are getting away from the original question.

 

[jeffreybrown]

This thread started off with...

It actually came up in a Talmudic discussion we were having (yeah, I study the Talmud; I'm a religious Jew lol), I'd like to see what people say about this.

And then...

This isn't a moral debate!

I would think as a Jew, you understand the Torah/Talmud and the moral aspects of those writings. I imagine your discussion in itself was most likely a moral issue.

How about this: You own two very rare stamps, each valued at $50,000. They are the only two of their kind in existence. I take one of them, rip it in half and burn it. I owe you $50,000! Right? Here's the catch. The other stamp, now being the only one in existence, has now doubled in value; and is worth $100,000.

Rare stamp, well maybe, but only in the eye of the beholder.

The second stamp should not even be part of the equation. It's my stamp and what buisiness is it of anybody to now its worth unless I as the owner choose to share that information. The second stamp, now worth 100K...so...what does that have to do with you destroying my possession and your responsibility for restitution.

I agree with Jonmo, $50k is only what somebody said you could get for it, not what you have in your hand.

Here in Texas I paid over $200k for my house and if I sold it today, the appraiser might estimate its worth at $230k. If I put it on the market, but the most anybody offers me is $210K, what recourse do I have to get the appraised $230k. Absolutely none. I can either take the $210k or keep the house and wait until somebody is ready to fork over the appraised value.

May not be the same example, but in the end, I am still out only $200k, not the appraised $230k. It was never mine.

 

[xenou]

^ but surely its one thing to say the stamp is not worth $50,000 (exactly) and another to say it isn't worth a penny. Let's just accept that the stamp has value, and with a market for rare stamps we can appraise that value with some kind of reasonableness. The owners "guess" about the value is probably approximately the appraised value anyway. The remark about morality is a semantic thing. Some people define morality as "interior" attitudes (remorse), while other see that as irrelevant and prefer to think in terms of what "external" actions are required of you (restitution). Those in the latter camp would generally not use terms like morality, but instead talk about ethics or justice. They have some common ground though, I think - at very least they both deal with our sense of right and wrong. Anyway, Ben meant that it doesn't matter whether the person "feels sorry" about what they did - what matters in this case is the question about what must he do to provide restitution.

 

[Jonmo1]

I don't think we're saying the stamp has no value at all.
Just that you can't award an appraised value as restitution for the loss of the stamp.
Simply because the owner did not actually own, therfore did not actually lose the appraised value.
The owner only owned a stamp, and only lost the $ amount that they originaly purchased the stamp for.

Back to my point that if the "Current appraised value" was LESS than the Purchase price,
I think anyone would be upset if the perpetrator was only required to repay the lesser appraised value.
If this is true, then the reverse must also be true.
You can't have it both ways.


Perhaps there's a middle gournd.

A Criminal trial for theft and/or destruction of property should only fetch the actual value lost (purchase price)

But the owner of the stamp can certainly seek the appraised value in a Civil Lawsuit.
Or even from their Insurance Company.
I think I pointed out before that is what Insurance is for, and why it's so expensive.