Seriously, WHY are all the Mods here Ultra Libs?

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

so what? delete the special rights and treat all individuals the same regardless of marital status

It's not so much the "special" rights given to married people, but rather the "common law" rights such as shared property. The government needs to be a bit involved to avoid disputes when their are separations and deaths.
I do agree that all individuals should be otherwise treated the same.

Not so much. If both or all are paying for something, their names are on it. If it's something one is paying for or owns outright, then their names are on it. It's fairly simple.
If one want to lay claim that the services or upkeep they provide entitles them to more than what they are paying for or own that needs to be done on a case by case basis.

And that's why I brought in the term "common law".

For thousands of years in western society, when a man died his wife retained the rights to the property even though she never "paid" for it.

Like it or not, this is the basis for what we have today.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

yes. and if those individuals ..... want to have legal rights that we currently associate with those between husband and wife, ...

I'm saying ditch those rights that we "currently associate" with legal partnership and make it ALL a non-issue

The premise that any of this is needed is based on more government enforcement (and the need to tax that exchange). If we own something jointly, and I die, then her name is already on the papers. Make a Will, then government can exist to just enforce that without anyone else butting in.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Like it or not, this is the basis for what we have today.

You are such a Conservative. Why do you hate change?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rhaig 0]

Quote

[

I'm saying ditch those rights that we "currently associate" with legal partnership and make it ALL a non-issue

The premise that any of this is needed is based on more government enforcement (and the need to tax that exchange). If we own something jointly, and I die, then her name is already on the papers. Make a Will, then government can exist to just enforce that without anyone else butting in.

I'm not being able to explain myself to you that I agree to an extent. So rather than go back and forth, I'll just say.

yes.

--
Rob

[rehmwa 2]

no, we agree.

I just want to eliminate the current set too and just start from scratch, rather try to fit everyone into the current system. You are more reasonable and are compromising with the current setup.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Marriage is a much more complex contract if you will. Right now it's all packaged up in one big box called "marriage" and includes rights of inheritance, rights pertaining to children (i.e. the father has visitation rights if there is a divorce and some say in the child's development.) You could do all that separately; write all sorts of contracts saying "yes you can have the car if we split up and I get the kids, I will not have sex with other women or I owe you half my belongings" etc etc. It would be a lot more paperwork, but would be functionally equivalent.

I think we see here that true libertarianism is a much more radical departure from our current system than some posters above want to make it (say libertarians are republicans in sheeps clothing). Yes, marriage is a default contract involving all sorts of rights and statuses to all sorts of things (mostly property). A true libertarian says that if people want to grant each other those rights then they need to contract with each other, not have the state impose them as part of a package (of course libertarians could just abstain from marriage altogether, too). A true libertarian answer is not to extend that right to new categories and classes of people. Private contract rights and the dignity of the individual to provide for himself without all sorts of nanny state nonesense are paramount to a libertarian way of thinking.

Rights pertaining to children are theoretically exactly the same whether the parents are married to each other or not.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Why even have a civil union ?

Divorce lawyers' babies need new shoes.

[Remster 24]

You have a shoe thing, Andy, don't you....

Remster

[skyrider 0]

Quote

>Please explain how you can cheat, lie, or BS and turn more points on
>a videoed skydive.

Cameraman can speed up video playback as it's being dubbed.

Cameraman can look away from the door until after exit (old French trick.) Gets them a few more tenths of a second.

Cameraman can get on level or get way high during points you tend to bust (another old French trick.)

You can have someone jump in your place using your jumpsuit/rig. Judges generally do not check carefully.

You can substitute an entire other team's video. Again, judges generally don't check.

You can mess with the other team's camera without their knowledge. Simply zooming them in all the way just before climbout will do the trick; video bust.

There are lots of ways. But again, most people who win 4-way competitions do so just because they're good 4-way skydivers.

One more. If it is yoru Home DZ..You can substiture a practice jump that went perfect, and just happened to be the same as the draw! (seen it happen)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

And just because someone wins a 4-way competition doesn't necessarily mean that they are any good at 4-way. But they _probably_ are better than people who don't win them.

Bad analogy. A better one would be that a person who graduates Skydive University may be better than someone who does not.

To claim a person MUST do SDU to win 4way is like claiming a person needs a degree to be smart.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

And just because someone wins a 4-way competition doesn't necessarily mean that they are any good at 4-way. But they _probably_ are better than people who don't win them.

Bad analogy. A better one would be that a person who graduates Skydive University may be better than someone who does not.

To claim a person MUST do SDU to win 4way is like claiming a person needs a degree to be smart.

Uh, you replace a bad analogy with a false one.

Skydive U doesn't offer anything that isn't available at a number of other DZs, esp those located near the ever growing number of wind tunnels opened in the past 5 years.

And again, no one has claimed you have to have a degree to be smart. This conversation (on 3 different subject headers) would be more productive without the strawmen.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>I don't think that is a libertarian response. As somebody who leans
>libertarian myself I would like to see governement completely out of the
>business of regulating personal relationships--no state sanctioned
>marriage for anybody, we don't need it.

I agree. Marriage should be performed by churches, ministers, family members who want to be the official, basically anyone who wants to do it (and who is agreed to by the people being married.) The government should limit themselves to setting up the civil union that occurs when someone gets married; that's it.

Unfortunately that's not what we have now. And if government is going to try to regulate it, then they absolutely cannot discriminate based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

As I said, Bill is a true Libertarian, as he is with his fiscal beliefs too. It's just that conservatives call him a liberal, supporting my beliefs that most so-called Libertarians are just disgrntled Republicans looking for a place / party to roost so they kinda-sorta call themselves Libertartarians, altho we know they aren't.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

"Libertarian" is one of the new feel-good names.

From what I see on these forums, a libertarian is a conservative without the balls to stand up for the whole platform.

They are generally very vocal against the left, yet when a misstep is pointed out on the right they state:

"I am a Libertarian"

Exactly, or as I call them, a digruntled Republican. To say the 2 are far off is ludicrous.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Yes, marriage is a default contract involving all sorts of rights and statuses to all sorts of things (mostly property).

Wrong, way more than property:

- Power of attny

- Power of life/death with medical matters

- Mutual 5th Ammend right against self-incrim

You become one in the same person in all aspects when you get married.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

To even say all mods are liberal is tarded. I know of 2 I would cal conservative, Bill is Libertarian. Not the Coca-cola Libertarian who has no opinion about moral issues, a true libertarian who proactively wants gay marriage, etc.

I don't think that is a libertarian response. As somebody who leans libertarian myself I would like to see governement completely out of the business of regulating personal relationships--no state sanctioned marriage for anybody, we don't need it.

But you would probably attend a tea-bagger taxation rally, never consider attending an abortion rights rally or a gay marriage rally, right? So you would, "check the box" but that's about it other than feeling really strong about tax cuts, rendering you more GOP with compassion for personal rights.

This is what I'm talking about when I call some Libertarian, "Coca-Cola Libetarians."

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

To even say all mods are liberal is tarded. I know of 2 I would cal conservative, Bill is Libertarian. Not the Coca-cola Libertarian who has no opinion about moral issues, a true libertarian who proactively wants gay marriage, etc.

Quote

(not the current non-lib viewpoint of lib's being anarchists),

So what do you call cutting social svs and having masses of poor and elderly homeless? Thsi is the Libertarian dream, right?

Quote

granted it's been a while, but when I was being taught what a libertarian is it was a lot about not wanting regulation on how we live our personal lives. what I personally do by myself or with other consenting adults, really is no business of the government, unless I'm involving an unwilling third party (either through personal or property interactions).

And there inlies the rub, most Libertarians I encounter are 90% about the property aspect, 10% the personal rts aspect.

Quote

The consequences of my actions are my fault and I need to deal with that. This is not anarchy, this is personal freedom and accountability.

Right and the actions of nature are not your fault and as a Libertarian yours is to show no compassion.

Quote

for instance:
I don't think we should have laws allowing gay marriage. There weren't any laws that specifically forbade it, so it was allowed. Unfortunately, there was case-law established through lawsuits and some states began to forbid it. So those rulings need to be somehow nullified. The best we seem to be doing is trying to get laws established pointing the other direction.

we have too many laws that either aren't being enforced or are being enforced selectively. The last thing we need to do is put more laws on the books to stop people from doing something that doesn't interfere with other individuals.

So your answer is to do nothing, defaulting to the GOP mindset of no legal gay marriage, exposing your true GOP beliefs with a hint of, "Gee, can't we lower taxes and keep everything else the same?"

• Quote

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

The consequences of my actions are my fault and I need to deal with that. This is not anarchy, this is personal freedom and accountability.

Right and the actions of nature are not your fault and as a Libertarian yours is to show no compassion.

you have no idea how I choose to care for my community in times of need (due to many things, acts of nature being only one of them).
***

So your answer is to do nothing, defaulting to the GOP mindset of no legal gay marriage, exposing your true GOP beliefs with a hint of, "Gee, can't we lower taxes and keep everything else the same?"

had you read more than this post, you might see that is not my intent. (wrt gay marriage)

I'll not bother to re-explain and leave the reading as an exercise.

you continue to ASS-u-me you know what I think (I've quoted benny hill on this before).

stop trolling

--
Rob