marriage - Page 2

henry quirk · 10-08-2014, 03:44 PM

UT,

"What do you do now? Who do you call? Why would whomever you call take your side, do your bidding? Aren't they going to side with the person with the big rock?"

I was pretty clear: government's role is...as arbiter of contract dispute (not as licenser or sanctioner or promoter).

I guess you missed that (or, mebbe you just want to rant and my thread provides a point of discharge...if so: glad to help a frustrated person out).

#

"Folks are not capable of getting along without a representative government..."

Yeah, that's why I call it a 'necessary evil'.

Undertoad · 10-08-2014, 04:52 PM

Right, the government only arbitrates contracts. But it's weird how the government that I end up with, and the government that you end up with, are quite different things, from that same starting point.

I say you are underestimating what it requires to arbitrate a contract. It isn't very long before a system identical to the one we have would evolve.

Who arbitrates the contract? "Government." No, I mean like, which person or system? Is it someone elected, or appointed, or did you have a different approach in mind?

henry quirk · 10-09-2014, 08:29 AM

"the government only arbitrates contracts"

I didn't say that.

Why are you playin' stupid?

Clearly: if you take gov out of the mix as licenser, promoter, sanctioner of marriage (allowing folks to craft contracts between one another [as they do currently in many other areas]) then gov has the role of contract dispute arbiter.

Have said this several times.

#

As to 'who' arbitrates: who (within gov) arbitrates contract dispute now?

Contract law is not new...contracts (as concept) are not new...the courts are not new.

henry quirk · 10-09-2014, 08:31 AM

And: I don't recall sayin' contract dispute is easy.

Divorce (a form of disputed contract) is not easy.

Not seein' your point.

Undertoad · 10-09-2014, 09:43 AM

It's slow going so please be patient and bear with me. My point will become apparent over time. This is a discussion, there is no winner.

"the government only arbitrates contracts"

I made that sentence to clarify. The longer version of the sentence would be, "So, in your suggested concept of how this should work, the government only arbitrates contracts."

That is what you are saying. You are also saying that your suggested concept of how this should work includes all of the current mechanisms of law.

So under your suggested concept, anyone can make a marital contract with anyone else, except for those who can't make a contract with someone else, such as people under 18. You can't make a contract with someone underage, so you can't make a marital contract with someone underage. Is this also your position?

henry quirk · 10-09-2014, 09:53 AM

"so you can't make a marital contract with someone underage. Is this also your position?"

Yes.

Undertoad · 10-09-2014, 09:54 AM

Why?

Undertoad · 10-09-2014, 10:13 AM

ETA: I seem like I'm leading here. Let me go further. Not all authorities agree on 18 as a marital age. In fact in many countries, including almost all of the US, you can marry younger with parental consent. In Scotland the age is 16. In Asia it's all over the place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

Should you be able to marry at 16? Does parental consent matter at all in this?

henry quirk · 10-09-2014, 10:21 AM

Yes, the law wiggles a lot on the matter of age of consent.

Does it do the same in matters of pure contract?

Can a 16 year old enter into a legally binding contract?

No, they cannot.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-...o-contract.htm

The legal age to contract refers to the chronological age a person must be to enter into a binding agreement. In most parts of the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, a person is a legal adult when he or she is 18 years of age. In some parts of the United States, a person must be 19 years old before he or she is a legal adult. In Scotland, a person can sign some types of contracts when he or she is 16 years old, but must be at least 18 to sign a contract to make a major purchase, such as buying a house or other property.

To form a legally-binding contract, each party who is signing it must be able to understand what is being signed. Not only does each party need to understand the terms of the contract, but everyone must also specifically consent to its terms. Children are not considered capable of fully understanding the terms of a contract and, in most areas, are not held legally responsible if they enter into one.

The law is written in this way to protect children from people who may attempt to take advantage of them. A young person may think that he or she has the capacity to understand the terms of the contract presented, but he or she must also be mature enough to appreciate the consequences of what is being signed. The principle was written for this purpose.

Undertoad · 10-09-2014, 10:29 AM

Wull, I find that to be unfair. A lot of 16 year olds are very mature. A lot of 20 year olds are not. Why are mature 17 year olds not allowed to enter into contracts? Why are immature 19 year olds allowed? Physical age is really a very weak way to determine who can enter into contracts. Why is it 18?

henry quirk · 10-09-2014, 12:53 PM

"Physical age is really a very weak way to determine who can enter into contracts."

But that's not the determiner.

"To form a legally-binding contract, each party who is signing it must be able to understand what is being signed. Not only does each party need to understand the terms of the contract, but everyone must also specifically consent to its terms."

"A young person may think that he or she has the capacity to understand the terms of the contract presented, but he or she must also be mature enough to appreciate the consequences of what is being signed."

Maturity/experience is the determiner.

Certainly there are 16 year olds capable of entering into binding contracts (emancipation is one means by which the under-aged can access the use of the legal system) and there are 60 years who cannot.

Broadly (based on community standards) 18 is seen as the minimum age wherein a person generally has the experience to consent.

It's not a perfect system.

The current system of marriage is not a perfect system.

My suggestions in this thread are not indicative of a perfect system.

And: considering the increasing level of infantilization in America, I’m inclined to think the age of consent mebbe ought to be set higher…

Undertoad · 10-09-2014, 01:46 PM

Your suggested imperfect system only needs to be better than the current imperfect system, in order to be something to aim at.

Community standards made 18 the age. It did it the usual way: people apply all different kinds of pressure. Some of it through the vote: we vote for people who seem to advance the ideas we like, shared by the groups we are a part of. Some of it through the courts: when people believe the law is unjust, they will use power to demand that it be re-considered or overturned. Some of it just through conversations: convince others of an idea, and that idea becomes stronger in the culture.

If a government is representational, eventually the law will reflect the will of the people, when they exercise these kinds of forces.

That's kinda what my point is, I suppose. You say "let anyone construct a contract and government can only arbitrate!" but the people demand a special type of contract law governing certain types of contracts. If we don't have that, the government is not representing the will of the people.

That's a bigger problem than we started with. I think that's my point.

Undertoad · 10-09-2014, 01:53 PM

Step further after thinking about it. 18 is really remarkable isn't it? The law makes 18 the boundary because it's the will of the people, but it's more than that. Now, society reflects the law right back, and applies pressures on 17 year olds to get their shit together, and shames 19 year olds who don't have their shit together. Because hey, it's the law.

henry quirk · 10-09-2014, 01:55 PM

"Your suggested imperfect system only needs to be better than the current imperfect system, in order to be something to aim at."

If idiosyncratic marriage contracts comprehensively secure that A can live with B without interference, as A and B like, isn't it better than a piecemeal approach wherein A and B are blunted 'here' but supported 'there'?

Undertoad · 10-09-2014, 02:30 PM

On the day they sign the contract, yes. After ~~a few years~~ 24 hours, A and B will have different notions of how that contract should be upheld. In most cases, one party will be supported and one blunted.

"You're not the B I married!" "Well you signed a contract with this B, so tough titties! Where's my bourbon?"

But the reason it's not simply a matter of what's best for A and B is because someone else is the arbiter. Once A and B sign a contract, they are applying the force of law, which in a representative government, is all of us.

Cruelty is grounds for terminating the contract right now, which seems right. And unusual, for a contract. If you buy a car on payments and the bank calls you names, hates on you, tries to provoke fights, and damages your self-esteem, you're still on the hook for the payments.

10-09-2014, 10:21 AM	#24
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	Yes, the law wiggles a lot on the matter of age of consent. Does it do the same in matters of pure contract? Can a 16 year old enter into a legally binding contract? No, they cannot. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-...o-contract.htm The legal age to contract refers to the chronological age a person must be to enter into a binding agreement. In most parts of the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, a person is a legal adult when he or she is 18 years of age. In some parts of the United States, a person must be 19 years old before he or she is a legal adult. In Scotland, a person can sign some types of contracts when he or she is 16 years old, but must be at least 18 to sign a contract to make a major purchase, such as buying a house or other property. To form a legally-binding contract, each party who is signing it must be able to understand what is being signed. Not only does each party need to understand the terms of the contract, but everyone must also specifically consent to its terms. Children are not considered capable of fully understanding the terms of a contract and, in most areas, are not held legally responsible if they enter into one. The law is written in this way to protect children from people who may attempt to take advantage of them. A young person may think that he or she has the capacity to understand the terms of the contract presented, but he or she must also be mature enough to appreciate the consequences of what is being signed. The principle was written for this purpose. Last edited by henry quirk; 10-09-2014 at 10:27 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-08-2014, 03:44 PM	#16
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	UT, "What do you do now? Who do you call? Why would whomever you call take your side, do your bidding? Aren't they going to side with the person with the big rock?" I was pretty clear: government's role is...as arbiter of contract dispute (not as licenser or sanctioner or promoter). I guess you missed that (or, mebbe you just want to rant and my thread provides a point of discharge...if so: glad to help a frustrated person out). # "Folks are not capable of getting along without a representative government..." Yeah, that's why I call it a 'necessary evil'.

10-08-2014, 04:52 PM	#17
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Right, the government only arbitrates contracts. But it's weird how the government that I end up with, and the government that you end up with, are quite different things, from that same starting point. I say you are underestimating what it requires to arbitrate a contract. It isn't very long before a system identical to the one we have would evolve. Who arbitrates the contract? "Government." No, I mean like, which person or system? Is it someone elected, or appointed, or did you have a different approach in mind?

10-09-2014, 08:29 AM	#18
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	"the government only arbitrates contracts" I didn't say that. Why are you playin' stupid? Clearly: if you take gov out of the mix as licenser, promoter, sanctioner of marriage (allowing folks to craft contracts between one another [as they do currently in many other areas]) then gov has the role of contract dispute arbiter. Have said this several times. # As to 'who' arbitrates: who (within gov) arbitrates contract dispute now? Contract law is not new...contracts (as concept) are not new...the courts are not new.

10-09-2014, 08:31 AM	#19
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	And: I don't recall sayin' contract dispute is easy. Divorce (a form of disputed contract) is not easy. Not seein' your point.

10-09-2014, 09:43 AM	#20
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	It's slow going so please be patient and bear with me. My point will become apparent over time. This is a discussion, there is no winner. "the government only arbitrates contracts" I made that sentence to clarify. The longer version of the sentence would be, "So, in your suggested concept of how this should work, the government only arbitrates contracts." That is what you are saying. You are also saying that your suggested concept of how this should work includes all of the current mechanisms of law. So under your suggested concept, anyone can make a marital contract with anyone else, except for those who can't make a contract with someone else, such as people under 18. You can't make a contract with someone underage, so you can't make a marital contract with someone underage. Is this also your position?

10-09-2014, 09:53 AM	#21
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	"so you can't make a marital contract with someone underage. Is this also your position?" Yes.

10-09-2014, 09:54 AM	#22
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Why?

10-09-2014, 10:13 AM	#23
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	ETA: I seem like I'm leading here. Let me go further. Not all authorities agree on 18 as a marital age. In fact in many countries, including almost all of the US, you can marry younger with parental consent. In Scotland the age is 16. In Asia it's all over the place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age Should you be able to marry at 16? Does parental consent matter at all in this?

10-09-2014, 10:29 AM	#25
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Wull, I find that to be unfair. A lot of 16 year olds are very mature. A lot of 20 year olds are not. Why are mature 17 year olds not allowed to enter into contracts? Why are immature 19 year olds allowed? Physical age is really a very weak way to determine who can enter into contracts. Why is it 18?

10-09-2014, 12:53 PM	#26
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	"Physical age is really a very weak way to determine who can enter into contracts." But that's not the determiner. "To form a legally-binding contract, each party who is signing it must be able to understand what is being signed. Not only does each party need to understand the terms of the contract, but everyone must also specifically consent to its terms." "A young person may think that he or she has the capacity to understand the terms of the contract presented, but he or she must also be mature enough to appreciate the consequences of what is being signed." Maturity/experience is the determiner. Certainly there are 16 year olds capable of entering into binding contracts (emancipation is one means by which the under-aged can access the use of the legal system) and there are 60 years who cannot. Broadly (based on community standards) 18 is seen as the minimum age wherein a person generally has the experience to consent. It's not a perfect system. The current system of marriage is not a perfect system. My suggestions in this thread are not indicative of a perfect system. And: considering the increasing level of infantilization in America, I’m inclined to think the age of consent mebbe ought to be set higher…

10-09-2014, 01:46 PM	#27
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Your suggested imperfect system only needs to be better than the current imperfect system, in order to be something to aim at. Community standards made 18 the age. It did it the usual way: people apply all different kinds of pressure. Some of it through the vote: we vote for people who seem to advance the ideas we like, shared by the groups we are a part of. Some of it through the courts: when people believe the law is unjust, they will use power to demand that it be re-considered or overturned. Some of it just through conversations: convince others of an idea, and that idea becomes stronger in the culture. If a government is representational, eventually the law will reflect the will of the people, when they exercise these kinds of forces. That's kinda what my point is, I suppose. You say "let anyone construct a contract and government can only arbitrate!" but the people demand a special type of contract law governing certain types of contracts. If we don't have that, the government is not representing the will of the people. That's a bigger problem than we started with. I think that's my point.

10-09-2014, 01:53 PM	#28
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Step further after thinking about it. 18 is really remarkable isn't it? The law makes 18 the boundary because it's the will of the people, but it's more than that. Now, society reflects the law right back, and applies pressures on 17 year olds to get their shit together, and shames 19 year olds who don't have their shit together. Because hey, it's the law.

10-09-2014, 01:55 PM	#29
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	"Your suggested imperfect system only needs to be better than the current imperfect system, in order to be something to aim at." If idiosyncratic marriage contracts comprehensively secure that A can live with B without interference, as A and B like, isn't it better than a piecemeal approach wherein A and B are blunted 'here' but supported 'there'?

10-09-2014, 02:30 PM	#30
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	On the day they sign the contract, yes. After ~~a few years~~ 24 hours, A and B will have different notions of how that contract should be upheld. In most cases, one party will be supported and one blunted. "You're not the B I married!" "Well you signed a contract with this B, so tough titties! Where's my bourbon?" But the reason it's not simply a matter of what's best for A and B is because someone else is the arbiter. Once A and B sign a contract, they are applying the force of law, which in a representative government, is all of us. Cruelty is grounds for terminating the contract right now, which seems right. And unusual, for a contract. If you buy a car on payments and the bank calls you names, hates on you, tries to provoke fights, and damages your self-esteem, you're still on the hook for the payments.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)