I honestly got lost at the difference between keeping a promise and a transfer of property rights, I'm guessing it's the "I give" as opposed to "I will give".
Last edited:
I honestly got lost at the difference between keeping a promise and a transfer of property rights, I'm guessing it's the "I give" as opposed to "I will give".
Yeah... to me, whether force is justified depends on whether someone's rights were violated. If they actually made a transfer in the rights to certain property and one party decides to be an indian giver, I'd say force is warranted. If it is just them making a promise to give something in the future, I don't think any right to the property was transferred, and it isn't right to force them to deliver. Since I'm a lawyer, I better add that this is just my personal opinion on the nature of rights/force, and it doesn't have anything to do with what the law says about this type of situation. We all know that the law countenances a lot of initiation of force when no rights were violated, and prohibits a lot of force when rights are violated.
I was told force/coercion is subjective in the psych/emotional, consent under duress is hard to prove, promises are meaningless without a contract, moral obligations are not enforceable(unless it's state controlled child support), and "Caveat emptor", especially with family.
Hypothetical;
You tell me you're going to borrow $500 to fix your car and I convince/coerce you (you trust me) instead to sell the car (I wanted the car and if I can't have it I don't want you to) by telling you there's no other choice and that I'll take care of driving you to work etc. but fail to do so causing you to be fired and have no food in the fridge have I violated your rights? Is force against me then justified?
P.S. I'm sorry if the question was out of line. I'm not asking for legal advice or trying to get you to "work for free", only asking your opinion.
This would actually fall under detrimental reliance, or rather promissory estoppel. Basically the person made a promise that was not fulfilled (I'll drive you to work and the store) and the party suffered damages as a result (lost income, or had to pay for cab fare). It's not so much as a violation of rights than it is a breach of contract.
This would be grounds for a civil suit, if you can show the entrance of a contract and the failure to perform by the promissor and actual damages to the promisee. That, of course, is always the catch. Honestly the good or bad faith would not matter much (though deceit could strengthen the case, certainly) as the failure to perform.
I'm not a lawyer, so this of course is not legal advice. But years of insurance have familiarized me with the legal principles related to torts and (for this example) contracts.
Regardless of terms it's a sad time in America when parents need contracts to protect them from their own children.
Honor or abandon: Societies' treatment of elderly intrigues scholar
From a common sense perspective, “Parents and children both want a comfortable life - there are limits to the sacrifices that they’ll make for each other.” And from a scientific perspective - natural selection - Diamond noted, “It may under some circumstances be better for children to abandon or kill their parents and for the parents to abandon or kill their children.”
http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/PRN-jared-diamond-on-aging-150571.aspx
From a common sense perspective, “Parents and children both want a comfortable life - there are limits to the sacrifices that they’ll make for each other.” And from a scientific perspective - natural selection - Diamond noted, “It may under some circumstances be better for children to abandon or kill their parents and for the parents to abandon or kill their children.”
http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/PRN-jared-diamond-on-aging-150571.aspx
Yessir. Can't argue that.
That's the way I feel too. I'm at the age where a person starts to face mortality. I don't think about it all the time but I do think about it often.
I guess that's what they mean when they say, educated moron. Maybe he/she should get away from his/her rat colony research and spend more time with people.
Not sure he's agreeing/advocating the idea or just explaining it from a specific perspective.
We may think what he said was horrible but in reality doesn't our society tacitly condone "natural selection" for reasons much more shallow and selfish than those we consider uncivilized.
[Traditional nomadic tribes often end up abandoning their elderly during their unrelenting travels. The choice for the healthy and young is to do this or carry the old and infirm on their backs - along with children, weapons and necessities - through perilous territory. Also prone to sacrificing their elderly are societies that suffer periodic famines. Citing a dramatic example, Diamond said Paraguay’s Aché Indians assign certain young men the task of killing old people with an ax or spear, or burying them alive...]
http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/PRN-jared-diamond-on-aging-150571.aspx
Similar threads
