Pre-nups to be valid over a much wider variety of terms.
I don’t mean purely division-of-property contracts. Pre-nups are general agreements, they can be about anything the parties want to agree to.
And I still don’t find this level of analysis helpful.
Ah. I find your consistent refusal… illuminating :-)
After a while I think almost everyone will want a contract that makes the party at fault pay compensation
Do you, now? I don’t want such a contract, quite explicitly, too. Why do you believe that most people think like you and not like me?
But even if you disapprove of Alice’s motivations
I don’t approve or disapprove. I am interested in them.
Denying people the ability to form voluntary contracts is the unfair part.
Well, that’s the basic libertarian position. Given that you proclaim it, should I understand that you are in favor of gay marriage, a large variety of poly marriages, marriages between close relatives, etc? And that’s even before we get to a variety of more interesting contracts that don’t deal with marriage...
How do you feel, for example, about temporary marriages: Alice and Bob form a voluntary contract that they will be married for one year after which the marriage automatically dissolves and they are free to go their own ways..?
people want to get married, but feel they can’t because the institution is too unstable due to lack of precommitment.
Really? That looks like, um, let’s be polite and say “motivated cognition”. Can you provide evidence that supports this claim?
I am talking about giving people more freedom
That’s the thing, you see, it certainly doesn’t look like that to me.
Ah. I find your consistent refusal… illuminating :-)
What’s the basic nature of drinking alcohol? Is it really about changing your mental state? Or is it really about lowering your inhibitions? Or is it really about drowning your sorrows? Or something else? It’s a ridiculous question. It doesn’t have a single purpose, it has lots, and some people drink for one reason but strongly disapprove of another reason, or vice-versa.
Do you, now? I don’t want such a contract, quite explicitly, too. Why do you believe that most people think like you and not like me?
I think that, right now, most people have no strong view on the subject. But I think that people are good at learning, and so, over time, they will imitate those marriages which prove the most successful, and which best signal future commitment. I could be wrong.
But even if you disapprove of Alice’s motivations
I don’t approve or disapprove. I am interested in them.
She’s your fictional character. You tell me.
Given that you proclaim it, should I understand that you are in favor of gay marriage, a large variety of poly marriages, marriages between close relatives, etc?… [temporary marriage also]
Except for marriages between close relatives, I “favour” all of these things in the sense that I think they should be legal.
That’s the thing, you see, it certainly doesn’t look like that to me.
And I am much too polite to tell you what your position looks like to me.
What’s the basic nature of drinking alcohol? Is it really about changing your mental state?
Why, yes, it is, given that lowering your inhibitions and drowning your sorrows are exactly that. I don’t think it is a ridiculous question.
they will imitate those marriages which prove the most successful
I am guessing that you define a “successful marriage” as a “long-lasting marriage”. I would not agree with such a definition.
Let me also point out that people will imitate the lives which look the most successful to them. Such lives may or may not involve long-lasting marriages.
I “favour” all of these things in the sense that I think they should be legal.
Interesting. So you think both that temporary marriages should be legal and that marriages should be made to be longer and more painful to get out of.
And I am much too polite to tell you what your position looks like to me.
/me waves a magic wand… Poof! I invoke the magical name of Crocker and release you from the politeness spell! :-)
What’s the basic nature of drinking alcohol? Is it really about changing your mental state?
Why, yes, it is, given that lowering your inhibitions and drowning your sorrows are exactly that. I don’t think it is a ridiculous question.
So someone who drinks alchohol just because they like the taste is “wrong”? To me that’s just absurd. Marriage can mean a holy sacrament to a Catholic, a lifelong commitment to me, an excuse for a good party for my cousin, and many more things besides. There’s no true “nature” beside the meanings we give it.
Let me also point out that people will imitate the lives which look the most successful to them. Such lives may or may not involve long-lasting marriages.
This is true! Different people have different wishes and desires. That’s why people should have the choice. I think most people want a long-lasting marriage, and would take steps to achieve that. I could be wrong though, and if people want to stay with the status quo they would be free to do so. You on the other hand, refuse to discover whether you are right, and refuse to give people the choice.
So you think both that temporary marriages should be legal and that marriages should be made to be longer and more painful to get out of.
No, I do not think that marriages should be made more painful to get out of. If people want to, they should be allowed to make their marriages shorter and even easier to get out of. But of course you already know that, and are deliberately misreading me.
I … release you from the politeness spell! :-)
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that I show politeness out of respect for you. I assure you that is not the case. I am polite out of respect for me.
So someone who drinks alchohol just because they like the taste is “wrong”?
I don’t know of a single person who drinks alcohol because they like the taste. I know people who drink Bordeaux wines, or particular beers, or specific ports because they like the taste.
There’s no true “nature” beside the meanings we give it.
Oh, I did not ask about the eternal true Platonic nature. I asked what do you believe the true nature of marriage to be.
You on the other hand, refuse to discover whether you are right, and refuse to give people the choice.
Do I, really? You seem to lapsing into the agitprop vocabulary.
I am polite out of respect for me.
Allow me to have my doubts. People like that don’t drop hints how they would really destroy the opponent’s positions if only the limits of politeness did not hold them back...
Allow me to have my doubts. People like that don’t drop hints how they would really destroy the opponent’s positions if only the limits of politeness did not hold them back...
Once again you miss the point. I don’t think my arguments would gain any extra force if I was personally rude about you, or resorted to the type of deliberate misreadings you engage in. Everyone can see what your position is like, and we can all draw our own conclusions.
The way we all conduct ourselves leads others to conclude things, not merely about the weight of our arguments, but the content of our characters. That’s all.
Well, the discussion seems to have drifted into the more heat and less light direction. I don’t find your position convincing and no doubt you feel the same way about mine. Perhaps we should just accept that we disagree.
I don’t mean purely division-of-property contracts. Pre-nups are general agreements, they can be about anything the parties want to agree to.
Ah. I find your consistent refusal… illuminating :-)
Do you, now? I don’t want such a contract, quite explicitly, too. Why do you believe that most people think like you and not like me?
I don’t approve or disapprove. I am interested in them.
Well, that’s the basic libertarian position. Given that you proclaim it, should I understand that you are in favor of gay marriage, a large variety of poly marriages, marriages between close relatives, etc? And that’s even before we get to a variety of more interesting contracts that don’t deal with marriage...
How do you feel, for example, about temporary marriages: Alice and Bob form a voluntary contract that they will be married for one year after which the marriage automatically dissolves and they are free to go their own ways..?
Really? That looks like, um, let’s be polite and say “motivated cognition”. Can you provide evidence that supports this claim?
That’s the thing, you see, it certainly doesn’t look like that to me.
What’s the basic nature of drinking alcohol? Is it really about changing your mental state? Or is it really about lowering your inhibitions? Or is it really about drowning your sorrows? Or something else? It’s a ridiculous question. It doesn’t have a single purpose, it has lots, and some people drink for one reason but strongly disapprove of another reason, or vice-versa.
I think that, right now, most people have no strong view on the subject. But I think that people are good at learning, and so, over time, they will imitate those marriages which prove the most successful, and which best signal future commitment. I could be wrong.
She’s your fictional character. You tell me.
Except for marriages between close relatives, I “favour” all of these things in the sense that I think they should be legal.
And I am much too polite to tell you what your position looks like to me.
Why, yes, it is, given that lowering your inhibitions and drowning your sorrows are exactly that. I don’t think it is a ridiculous question.
I am guessing that you define a “successful marriage” as a “long-lasting marriage”. I would not agree with such a definition.
Let me also point out that people will imitate the lives which look the most successful to them. Such lives may or may not involve long-lasting marriages.
Interesting. So you think both that temporary marriages should be legal and that marriages should be made to be longer and more painful to get out of.
/me waves a magic wand… Poof! I invoke the magical name of Crocker and release you from the politeness spell! :-)
So someone who drinks alchohol just because they like the taste is “wrong”? To me that’s just absurd. Marriage can mean a holy sacrament to a Catholic, a lifelong commitment to me, an excuse for a good party for my cousin, and many more things besides. There’s no true “nature” beside the meanings we give it.
This is true! Different people have different wishes and desires. That’s why people should have the choice. I think most people want a long-lasting marriage, and would take steps to achieve that. I could be wrong though, and if people want to stay with the status quo they would be free to do so. You on the other hand, refuse to discover whether you are right, and refuse to give people the choice.
No, I do not think that marriages should be made more painful to get out of. If people want to, they should be allowed to make their marriages shorter and even easier to get out of. But of course you already know that, and are deliberately misreading me.
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that I show politeness out of respect for you. I assure you that is not the case. I am polite out of respect for me.
I don’t know of a single person who drinks alcohol because they like the taste. I know people who drink Bordeaux wines, or particular beers, or specific ports because they like the taste.
Oh, I did not ask about the eternal true Platonic nature. I asked what do you believe the true nature of marriage to be.
Do I, really? You seem to lapsing into the agitprop vocabulary.
Allow me to have my doubts. People like that don’t drop hints how they would really destroy the opponent’s positions if only the limits of politeness did not hold them back...
Once again you miss the point. I don’t think my arguments would gain any extra force if I was personally rude about you, or resorted to the type of deliberate misreadings you engage in. Everyone can see what your position is like, and we can all draw our own conclusions.
The way we all conduct ourselves leads others to conclude things, not merely about the weight of our arguments, but the content of our characters. That’s all.
Well, the discussion seems to have drifted into the more heat and less light direction. I don’t find your position convincing and no doubt you feel the same way about mine. Perhaps we should just accept that we disagree.