sjw wrote:I didn't specify specific conditions of abandonment, but I would certainly rule out counting a parent's home in any way "abandoned" for letting a child of any age live there with the parent.
I'm trying to resolve what you've been talking about. Originally you seemed to be interested in asking whether it is right for an owner to impose rules on a borrower, in case both of them agreed to the rules in the first place (that is, if we can recognize the consent, which you'll have to consult with Franc's blog posts about consent to see where that works and where it doesn't).
But somehow you switched that over to parents giving rules to children. At least, this is the example you gave us to describe the rules you wanted to talk about. (Maybe that's an apt comparison to make with rent, or not, but I'll leave it alone.)
So, are you still wanting to talk about rent or not? If you don't want to talk about the specific condition of parenting a child, then please pick some other example for what you want to talk about, if you still wish.
sjw wrote:Also you are asking very narrow questions at a point when fundamental principles haven't really been much discussed. E.g., Francois seems to define "property" in an unusual way, that's far more interesting a subject.
It is interesting, sure.
The problem we tend to have here is that it is often hard to figure out exactly what your fundamental principles are without having some specific examples to describe them. Because often, the implications that one may draw from the claimed principles differs from what you may expect, as we witnessed.
"Let us remember that no man can borrow money, as a good business transaction, under any system, unless he has the required security to make the lender whole in case he should lose the money. What a stupendous wrong is this—that a man having credit cannot use it, but must exchange it and pay a monopoly price, which is really for the privilege of using his own credit!"
Usery by Apex