This Government sux just like the last government did.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by doomsday surprise, Oct 10, 2013.

  1. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    But Bord, who is going to enforce any of this? If I don't recognise your preferred DRO and want to stand my ground on what ever the dispute is over and refuse to even engage in ANY type of dispute resolution because "I am right and no one is going to tell me otherwise". What happens then?
     
  2. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    I'll take this opportunity to reply to your thoughtful - as always - post.

    I can only say that at least two people married this year - both males:

    [​IMG]
    Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ame-sex-wedding-in-military-academys-history/

    PS: I suggest you read more than the first line or two of the 'Nero' article (which wasn't a 'Nero article' at all...and, so what if Nero was a jerk? The point of the article was not to establish a 'poster boy', but to demonstrate that your (and others') assertion that marriage has always been exclusively between one man and one woman is patently false), but here are a few excerpts:

    "The detail is recorded in the 1999 book Roman Homosexuality (updated in 2012) by Craig Williams, a classics professor of Brooklyn College, New York. The book includes a chapter on marriage between men, practiced throughout the empire, all the way to the top."
    "While perhaps one of the more high profile examples, it is not the only one. And the fluidity of the definition of marriage is not limited to Roman emperors."
    "[...] the most obvious example of how marriage has differed from Mr Abbott's definition is the long-standing practice of polygamy."
    ""The most culturally preferred kind of marriage through the ages was between one man and several women and this is the kind of marriage that is most often referred to in the first five books of the Bible," Professor Coontz said."
    "Specialists in the field of marriage and relationship history contacted by Fact Check all had examples of relationships that did not fit Mr Abbott's definition, but were at some time in history an accepted form of marriage."
    "James Neill says the current western understanding of marriage and sexuality is far removed from the historical reality."
    "In 16th century Central America, Spanish forces discovered that homosexual relationships and even unions between young men were common."
    "Writing in the Virginia Law Revue in 1993,William Eskridge, a professor of jurisprudence at Yale Law School, found "same-sex unions have been a valuable institution for most of human history and in most known cultures". Professor Eskridge has also written a book on the subject The Case For Same-Sex Marriage, published in 1996. Fact Check asked Professor Eskridge what he made of Mr Abbott's comments. "That statement is untrue. I've documented the history of marriages and other unions recognised between two women or two men in dozens of cultures throughout the world," he said."
    "The verdict A significant body of academic work shows that marriage and "other solemnised relationships" have not always been between "a man and a woman"."
     
  3. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    First, resurrecting some old stuff again:

     
  4. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    Second, it depends on the nature of the crime or charge against you.

    Break of contract: the general terms of any contract you'd enter into would refer to the process that disputes would be resolved (like they do right now). The parties therefore agree on their DROs or standard conditions.
    Misdemeanour: large scope applies here which my previous post touched on.
    Criminal: you'll be hunted down and tried by the DRO of the person (or their family) whose rights you attacked. If you don't have your own DRO to help defend you against an unjust settlement that's your problem (which is a big incentive to be a member of one in the first place). Presumably there'll be DROs for hire after the fact (including the one you are being tried by) but their fees will presumably be much higher.

    There's no reason why you can't go it alone but the risk, time and resource cost to an individual would no doubt be prohibitive for most people.
     
  5. SilverSaviour

    SilverSaviour New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At the end of the day, people prefer to get along and work out disputes peacefully.
    Why? Simply because it is cheaper.
    People also benefit from the division of labour, which requires everyone trading with each other.
     
  6. sammysilver

    sammysilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    6,008
    Likes Received:
    603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sydney
    If two cellmates are getting it off together and then decide to get married, is it okay?

    If yes, should they be separated, as prison is meant to be a punishment? If no to marriage they can continue their romp and live in bliss until released.

    If married and not separated is that fair to the hetros? Would they be entitled to unisex jails?

    Where is the debate?
     
  7. sammysilver

    sammysilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    6,008
    Likes Received:
    603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sydney
    OMG! I spelt gaol, jail!!!!

    I'll be buggered.
     
  8. Yippe-Ki-Ya

    Yippe-Ki-Ya New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    5,620
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Land of Guilty by Default
    I never took you for a socialist - just goes to show! :lol:
     
  9. Yippe-Ki-Ya

    Yippe-Ki-Ya New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    5,620
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Land of Guilty by Default
    Government lovers / socialists just aren't interested mate :lol:
     
  10. SilverSaviour

    SilverSaviour New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    indeed
     
  11. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    Wow taking a stand against those who encourage government coercion to limit the liberties of individuals is now being labeled as socialist is it? Your continuing decline in ability to debate anything on an intellectual basis on this forum has been staggering. Once upon a time your posts had some substance about them. You've slowly over time lowered yourself on this forum to nothing but a troll.
     
  12. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    Who determines what a legal contract is? And again what if I chose to disregard your chosen DRO and instead chose to up my premium with my policing mob for further protection? Wild Wild West style where rich guys just hired pinkertons who got a cut. I know this wasn't the norm but it did happen in isolated cases.

    As above I could just get in bed with my own DRO that will protect me from your DRO. Or similarly, I could easily if I was a rich farmer, hire a heap of my old Army buddies (or make them partners) to protect my interests (and now their interests). Effectively taking a monopoly or at least a heavy favouring on the use of force. What DRO is going to come at a well armed well trained militia over any type of dispute between you and I? You would have to have massive pockets to be able to afford such an undertaking when this could be a trivial matter in monetary terms but a just one in the average mans eyes.
     
  13. Yippe-Ki-Ya

    Yippe-Ki-Ya New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    5,620
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Land of Guilty by Default
    lol! you're really amusing ...

    You're the one whose wanting government to pass new laws that change how society have defined marriage for many thousands of years...
    :lol:
    Who are the loudest cheerleaders for these changes you are cheerleeding?
    1. The Greens
    2. Labour

    All other Fabian parties throughout the world - including the Democrats in the US.

    Not exactly good company you're keeping nowadays mate! :lol:

    The fact that you've become a socialist overnight doesn't make you "intellectual" by any stretch of the imagination... :lol:
     
  14. doomsday surprise

    doomsday surprise Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    El Dorado
    Russia is a great example.:roll eyes: A fascist state persecuting minorities due to their sexual orientation is a brilliant idea. NOT. I can't believe some of the stuff posted on this site.
     
  15. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    There fixed that for you mate. Oh and I didn't think you would have put the LDP up as a Fabian party? I thought they'd be right up your ally? Or they were until you realised that they stand for individual freedom and you came to the conclusion that you only wanted freedom for white heterosexual males, which forced you to vote a Liberal at the last election?

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_(Australia)

    https://m.facebook.com/LDP.australia/posts/10151452824177672

    Labor has stood staunch against gay marriage even though one of their head idiots is a lesbian.
     
  16. Yippe-Ki-Ya

    Yippe-Ki-Ya New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    5,620
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Land of Guilty by Default
    So according to your warped mind the age-old definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman has somehow OPPRESSED the gay/lesbian minority??? :lol: :lol: :lol:
    10/10 for talking utter [email protected] there mate - keep it up! :lol:

    As far as the LDP is concerned and libertarianism in general I believe their viewpoint is that government should not be involved in any way, shape or form in making laws about marriage ... it has got sweet f..all to do with the government!
    This is a viewpoint I share and support 100%!
    Unfortunately our big fat government DOES have its fat nose involved in marriage and just about every other facet of our lives and it appears as though you want this to continue and indeed - in the case of marriage - to be expanded into forcing the rest of the population (through coercion) to accept the minority's wants and needs wrt an age old tradition...

    I've seen some of your recent comments on the LDP and libertarianism in general and can only conclude that you have been driven to the dark side of socialism. Why don't you join the Greens? Sounds as if they'd be a good fit for ya! :lol:
     
  17. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    Umm, that's simple. The people undertaking the trade. No one trades unless they're both happy with the terms. Simple. In fact the simplest form of voluntarism there is.

    Such happens now and, as I said, will happen under any system. Why you think the degree will be worse under a system with competition rather than a single coercive institution is the key.

    Assuming you are going to all of this effort because you are not wanting to interact peacefully with others means that you are simply trying to set up your own bandit gang or some such. Why you think you'll fare better as a leader/member of a bandit gang constantly robbing and killing your neighbours rather than peacefully trading with them is curious. Why you think peaceful people being constantly attacked won't redirect some of their resources to defending themselves and/or attacking you and/or the source of your resources to undertake your criminal behaviour is also curious. How and why one a bunch if people can set themselves up as a robber gang and how and why others can't defend themselves are critically important to your argument. Again, there are various small examples of what you are talking about right now, even with the monopolistic DRO. Many in fact are created as an indirect result of the government creating laws that make peaceful citizens criminals. With less outcasts in society as a result of bad, immoral laws there will automatically be less people forced to act in ways necessitating their movement into robber gangs etc.
     
  18. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    What the heck are you two bickering about? The government should not write laws restricting voluntary activities between people full stop. Whether you think it is socially moral or not is irrelevant. The Government is forcing a legal definition.

    A dude and a lady can basically meet at a pub, get shit-faced and decide to get married in a chapel and then be viewed in the eyes of the law as having primary guardianship responsibilities if one person is incapacitated or has first access to the other persons property in the event of death. This legal recognition of primary guardianship and property ownership is the whole point of the institution of marriage (notably created for transfers between people from different families I'll add). Because a dude and a lady can also have (their own) kids they also get primary guardianship rights for any children. Again, the legal side of the marriage institution is simply to make a well defined hierarchy of rights and property transfer. There should be minimal restrictions on who can access this well defined hierarchy.

    As the legal arbiter, the Government should ensure that all people have access to this hierarchical setting then that's all that matters in terms of the government's role. Gays should have the same legal rights as heteros. What frickin words you call it is a separate matter not in the realm of government. Whether you approve or disapprove is also a separate matter not in the realm of government. This is what Lovey80 is saying. It is not "socialist/fabian/whatever" in any shape or form.
     
  19. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    Whoa whoa whoa there Yippie you can have it both ways. First off you say;

    So society decided what marriage was defined as. But now it's just an age-old tradition? Which is it? Why is it now tradition and not simply a mandate from the oldest and largest coercive and oppressive organization the world has ever seen (the church)?

    And you too fail to see the significance of your own posts and in fact your own argument defeats itself.

    So when the penny finally drops and the light bulb goes on and you realise that it isn't a minority forcing anything on you but more so that you are a minority trying to force something on the majority of society, will you just go back to resting on your argument it's just tradition?

    You and Ben Bernanke would have made great pals. Bah bah bah um "It's just tradition".

    Well guess what? Slavery, white male only suffrage, whaling, just to name a few were all tradition once.
     
  20. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    Actually this isn't what happens now. We have one DRO and that's the court system and neither party has any influence over it. It is benevolent to our individual wants or influence and works on a standard set of premade laws.

    Not so much an outward leaning monopoly of force but a protectionist one that isn't prepared to budge on a certain issue with a particular neighbor. For example, I may have large land and wish to dam a natural watercourse that only flows onto your property during heavy rainfall because the usual seasonal rainfall that would have naturally sustained us both modestly with water, is now being hogged by my new big dam.

    I haven't physically trespassed and stolen your property. Yet not only have I restricted your livelihood I've also devalued the land that you may use as collateral for your DRO. If I refuse to negotiate with you or your DRO what can you do about it?

    Currently we have a system, while not perfect or efficient, is meant to give an outcome that is at the very least fair and impartial.

    Actually, I await your reply but will not respond as these types of debates/conversations are best served to be had once we begin the path to where I think we should be. Which you agree is a place that is far better than current and is on the path where you want it to be.
     

Share This Page