Help John and I resolve our dispute

[Dave Ridley]

I and one of the members of this forum (His forum name is "John") are in a conflict that we are not able to resolve between ourselves and neither of us are eager to hire a mediator over. 

Since I am a "forum hammer" maybe everything looks like a "forum nail" to me.   But to his credit, when I suggested bringing our conflict here for resolution, he did not seem to object.    Maybe the community can guide us toward an honorable resolution.

I'll let him give his side first, then I'll present my side.  John...your turn.

[Dan Steward]

I would like to volunteer my negotiation skills to help settle the dispute. I have no formal diplomatic credentials nor other state sanctioned license to do anything. I think that may help boost my street cred in the voluntary "society" when it comes to these matters. I do have lots of experience breaking up fights in group homes.

That and last week, I emailed both the governments of North and South Korea and attempted to introduce myself as someone (with Uncle Sham's permission, of course) who could help broker peace and reunification between the two nations.

Once I've returned to the lands of Keene, NH I'd very much like to conduct arbitration and diplomatic services as a way to at least part time keep myself busy, help others, and walk through town with a few coins to jingle in my pockets. Perhaps even arbitrate disputes between liberty activists and gooberment to broker our freedom from their rule, once I've worked out the details.

Below is the text of the email I sent:


Dear Sirs,

As a truly neutral person aligned with no government entity whatsoever, I wish to attempt to broker a lasting peace negotiation between the nations of North Korea and South Korea with a possible agreement that would potentially unify the two nations. I find this vital in these days because of the growing conflict between the two entities and only a dated 1953 Armistice agreement as the only treaty that is preventing the horrors open hostilities would always entail.

I am by nature a very diplomatic person who desires peace and harmony between all peoples everywhere. I have used my skills of negotiation in the past to resolve minor conflicts between people in the lands where I live, yet again in no "official" diplomatic capacity.

That anyone in any place on earth would suffer from the ghastly effects of a potential war troubles me deeply. I also wish to see people reunited with their kin between the two countries. I have no diplomatic ties to any nation on earth either, because I do not officially recognize the "right" of any county to rule over me.

There is also the issue of "reunification" to be settled and I would welcome the thought of such a task being undertaken and eventually achieved if the following measures are met and agreed upon by all parties concerned:

1) Although I claim no allegiance to the United States, yet live within it's geographic boundaries, I must seek permission from them before attempting to broker any lasting peace before proceeding past this email to yourselves. This should avoid any criminal penalties against myself for not (at least for the present time) being one of the chosen diplomatic agents allowed to negotiate with other lands. This email to you should (for now) be construed as only an introduction of myself to your people.

2) North And South Korea will be given a common name denoting the re-unification of the lands. I will be satisfied with any mutually agreed upon name, yet for the purpose of this email, I shall refer to it as "Korea" in all future references.

3) Partners that trade with each other, absent any interference from the authorities into the free market of goods, services and ideas, will always have an incentive to remain peaceful with one another. With this in mind it is tantamount to negotiations that the unified nation of Korea be one that is based upon the ever peaceful principles of Agorism and a 100% voluntary society, absolutely free of any state force to ever be used against the inhabitants whatsoever at any time. The power of this said government will be severely limited if it is indeed given any function outside that of a merely symbolic one.

Wikipedia defines Agorism as:

Agorism is a political philosophy founded by Samuel Edward Konkin III and developed with contributions by J. Neil Schulman that holds as its ultimate goal bringing about a society in which all "relations between people are voluntary exchanges – a free market." The term comes from the Greek word "agora," referring to an open place for assembly and market in ancient Greek city-states. Ideologically, it is a term representing a revolutionary type of free-market anarchism.
<and>
Agorists are propertarian market anarchists who consider property rights to be natural rights deriving from the primary right of self-ownership.

4) I am sufficiently compensated for my efforts at working out a lasting peace and possible reunification.

These are the current terms I have spelled out and any additions would be added at a later date should I decide they be deemed necessary to any potential negotiations.

I await your decision as to whether you would consider such an endeavor to protect the lives and futures of millions of your fellow human beings from the potential of the senseless ravages of war and the abject ruin it brings. Should you wish to learn more about myself or the vital methods of Agorism, property rights, or Libertarian philosophy, please feel free to respond to me by email.

I can be reached at zenger(at)rock.com and I truly bid you peace.

Always in Liberty,

Dan Steward

[Russell Kanning]

I guess John is not interested.

[KBCraig]

Is John aware of this thread?

[Lloyd Danforth]

I'll bet he is.

[Dave Ridley]

I've sent him a link to the thread around july 23; however net access may be iffy with burning porc just winding down

I do not have reason to believe he checks PM's often so i may just be a few days before he gets to it. 

[liftsboxes]

... then we shall see.

[John]

Dave suggested hiring a mediator. I did not want to hire a mediator because I do not wish to invest any more of my money into a broken camera. When Dave suggested bringing it here, I said fine; I look forward to finding out what kind of responce people in "our community" will have.

I do not like spending a lot of time here on the forum so my response times to posts may be as long as this one was.

As I recall:
I let Dave borrow my camera many times. Dave used my camera at home and also brought it with him in his backpack to shot on location. I have no idea how many hours those uses would add up to.
The camera was in nearly new condition when I first loaned it to him. Over several months Dave used my camera far more than I did.
At some point, there was some minor (cosmetic?) damage to the camera. I may have caused that minor damage.
Dave continued to use my camera many times. Dave continued to use my camera far more than I. By early fall Dave was using my camera exclusively.
Eventually, Dave returned my camera in inoperable condition.
I would like Dave to repair or replace my camera

[Jim Johnson]

Dada?

[Russell Kanning]

yes

[rs38bj]

I would have said that the borrower of the camera is responsible for the replacement or repair.

If a verbal or written agreement did not specify otherwise, the borrower takes the risk that an item may become damaged or inoperable while in their possession. 

The lender would not under normal and reasonable circumstances anticipate the return of their item in a condition that limited it's functionality or market value. 

Despite the fact that the item was borrowed for a lengthy period of time and for extended use, due to not having an agreement to the contrary, the borrower assumes responsility for the item.

One could simply have said, "I might use this camera a lot, or I may keep it for a long time and so if it stops working during that time, and it isn't because I was negligent or improperly using it, then I'm not responsible for it."


However, I believe precedent would show that electronics and computers have a certain probability of malfunction.  I bought a $2,000 notebook computer at best buy once.  I took a special service warranty that cost  around $250.  The next morning the dvd-rom drive was not working properly, and I drove back to best buy and they handed me a new computer.  The original terms of the purchase did not cover the replacement of the dvd drive.  The store did not mean to sell me a faulty computer, but it just happened to have a bad part in it.  They were under no obligation to relace it except maybe in the intererst of repeat business, but this is speculation as to whether not they would have chosen to replace it because I did have the extra warranty coverage. 

However since we can assume that the borrower retained the camera and used it extensively, it would be good customer service to replace it.  Out of personal consideration for the person who  was willing to lend the item to them in good faith. 

[Dave Ridley]

OK finally, thanks for the response John.   

John  has a bone to pick with me.  And I have one to pick with him.  The short story is that I feel he leant me a failing piece of equipment, then blamed me for its failing....after twelve months of silence.

John wants me to address issues that cropped up with his camera during the one-to-two month span time when I was intermittantly using it.  I've been trying to address those concerns but feel I have been blocked by John himself.  And I have some concerns of my own regarding what strikes me as his  passive-aggressive bullying approach.  I would like to have those concerns addressed before assisting John.  Providing aid and comfort to an aggrieved party is appropriate. Providing aid and comfort in response to theatrics and bullying is not. Once John addresses my concerns, or once the communityi provides a solution, I can probably see my clear to address his concerns.

The issue goes back to roughly mid-2009. But John didn't bring it to my attention as a grievance until late June 2010. 

Last year he intermittently leant me his Sony Handycam for, I think, about three weeks. Perhaps it was as much as nine weeks.  The fact that he waited so long to express concerns...means I must rely on old memroy.  The camera had some tape loading issues when I started using it. But it was working better than mine at that time...mine returned to operational condition after a month or two out of action, as a result of simple repeated head cleaing.  But John's allowed me to cover two to five events better and dub some clips.   On roughly my sixth use of the tape eject mechanism, it failed completely.  This renders a camera useless and in this case also left it vulnerable to dust getting in the mechanism.  I enclosed it in a plastic bag to avoid the dust issue, informed John what the situation was. (I think I may have mentioned it before as well) and returned the machine.  Although I had been in posession of the camera when it failed, I didn't feel I had done anything beyond light use to contribute to the failure. Although I didn't expect the machine to completely fail so fast, it seemed obvious that it was a pre-existing problem.

John didn't express any concerns over the mechanical failure at the time, at least none that I can remember.  Used Sony Handycams of this type are I believe worth roughly $150; some last some don't.  Its failure seemed like something he was expecting as the camera entered what I believe was roughly its third year of use.  I e-mailed him suggesting what seemed like a mutually beneficial solution:  I buy parts of the camera from him that I can use, and pay what I considered an inflated price.  Maybe it wasn't inflated enough.  But I figured he would come out ahead of where he'd be if he hadn't leant me the machine.  It would have failed on him instead, and he'd have gotten nothing from it.  This way he would at least get to pay for part of a new camera with my money.  Heck he could have bought a whole new camera with it, although only a cheap one.

He didn't reply to the idea, and many months went by.  Then when I am visiting Grafton around June 27th, he walks up to me with the camera, interrupts a conversation and demands I return it in working condition. Almost as soon as I start discussing that idea with him he walks off.  Now it's true that I'm questioning whether his demand is fair.  I'm questioning whether it is safe to borrow things from him.  But you know me.  My voice is not raised.  The conversation is 90 seconds old.  And...he just walks off.  I haven't even had a chance to make a counterproposal.  And I start wondering whether that would be appropriate for me to do...when you feel someone is trying to bully you into a specific course of action, it sort of precludes that course of action.

The next day I see John again and suggest to him we let Mike Ruff resolve the dispute.  John tentatively aggrees.   But both of us want to avoid expense.   I send him some PM's, eventually one that suggests we take it here to the forum.  He agrees.  I post the message above, roughly two weeks ago.  Now John responds with his version of events.

Bottom line:   I feel it's wise to help John, but not until my concerns about his tactics are addressed.  I also realize that I could be wrong in this stance, and might better instead defer to some of the community's recommendations.  What do you forum folk think is the course of action I should take?

[KBCraig]

What do you forum folk think is the course of action I should take?

Thus far, you and John and told very divergent versions of what led up to this dispute.

I will wait until John responds before lending validity to either version.

[Terror Australis]

I think an amicable solution to both parties is to include depreciation on the camera to work out the price it would have sold at when it broke.This would be the compensation due to the owner.
http://www.affho.org/info/info08.php

This is an example using a computer.The rate for a camera would be different.

A computer may last six to ten years but it is highly probable that the maximum "useful life" for depreciation purposes might be regarded as three to five years due to the incredible advance in computer technology rendering it "out-of -date" (obsolescent) - to be relegated to some minor use, sold, part exchanged or just 'dumped' due to it being too costly to repair/maintain. As an example: if the computer cost $3000, was expected to be replaced after four years with a greater capacity machine with additional features and could be expected to sell for $400 at the end of the four years - the useful life would be four years and the depreciable amount would be "$3000 less the residual value $400=$2600"

If you borrow something and it breaks you should replace it - or get it repaired at your own cost.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Correct.