| Wonktonodi said: Progress is being made yes, but we're not there yet. We weren't obviously talking about anything, I know some people that go to the extreme and think that people should have the legal right to sign themselves into slavery. You were saying that the state shouldn't stop any contracts, now you have drawn lines? if you don't think that makes you elitist, you shouldn’t be calling me one. (though in some ways I will admit I am It's reality, I'm more informed than some people just as I know there are others more informed than I, and ignorance, mine or someone else’s isn't equal to someone’s knowledge) Give examples of what you think are valid contracts that aren’t allowed today that you think should be. Minimum wage? Housing agreements? Part of why I think there are and should be restrictions is that not all people going into those contracts are on equal footing to begin with, so while people might not be coerced by the other party to sign a contract that is way out of their favor, other circumstances might and the poor and impoverished deserve protections from predatory contract especially when it’s not even between 2 people but between a person and a corporation. In many of those cases you can give people those powers now even in a system with marriage, but if you haven’t made that decision before something happens to you, then it’s just poor planning on your part and not the systems fault, that they go to the default people who could make those decisions for you. In your example what happens is what some might call elitist ;P. The man got married making the legal contract granting his wife that power hopefully knowing she was Jehovah’s Witness. If he died because of that it was his right. In your hypothetical case, you could get an advance directive to make sure he couldn’t make a decision you disagree with, for the many who don’t make an advance directive, many states have laws that don’t just automatically give it to a spouse, but sometimes to adult children, neighbors. Some give the hospitals or doctors the power do decide who is the decision maker, or even just the doctor with the consultation of the next of kin. While some people say they want the state out of it, it’s there when people haven’t made a “contract” or other agreement beforehand. Of course there are then the issues of if you are traveling in another state, will it hold up or will that states laws apply? Best to check before traveling. Citizen shows up in the constitution all over the place, in requirements for being a representative, senator or president, in terms of the conflicts that the courts will settle, yes what a citizen is wasn’t defined there but congress had the power to make a uniform law for naturalization. The concept of citizenship is very real in this day though, and changes you want to other things would need to work with the current system or be changed concurrently. For the most part within the country people can take part in local civics wherever they are living, foreigners from out of the country not as much. Deportation today is a real issue for many.
|
Obviously I disagree with regards to the draft and everything else in that paragraph. That is the equivalent of slavery. And it does not belong in a free and equitable society. The draft is one of the most disgusting features of the state. It is nothing other than slavery (forcing somebody to do something that they do not wish to do at gun point.)
My point was that progress occured faster through the common law system as opposed with the statute system. It is obvious that common law is much more responsive to changes than legislation is.
Obviously if a party involved does not accept a contract, it is unenforceable by the state. We were talking about the state enforcing contracts, not stopping them. That is one of its self-atributed responsibilites.So obviously a contract in which all participants who were involved in the matter did not agree is unenforceable and invalid. I can't just go to your house and say I have a contract to take your things without you agreeing to it. And you and I can't sign a contract that says we can go to my neighbor's house and take all of his things. He never signed it. This is obvious and rudimentary. Minimum wage is a great example of government getting in the way of voluntary contracts. The net effect of minimum wage laws is unemployment with a small spike in local average wages.* (recent sources: http://ftp.iza.org/dp7166.pdf , http://www.columbia.edu/~jm3364/Minimum_Wage_and_Space.pdf ) Which is better? Having a job and making something or not having a job at all and starving? At least in the first option you have a chance to make connections and show that you are worth more to your employer than they think. Obviously if somebody isn't going to benefit from the contract they will not sign it. So I will leave it to the individuals to decide what is best for themselves and not the state applying one-size fit all policies which in the end actually act in opposition of that person's individual interests. Nobody is being preyed on in a contract, because both persons expect to benefit.
So why do we need statutory marriage again? Wasn't the argument for marriage that we couldn't give people these powers otherwise? ;) As for the state being there when nobody has planned for it, it still isn't doing anything anybody else can't do. It is guessing who it should be that makes the decision, based on the whims of a central group of a few dozen people who know nothing about the particular situation. Why would it even matter if the state guessed or the hospital guessed? In fact, I would say the hospital at least has more knowledge of the situation than the state. If somebody hasn't priorly appointed somebody then honestly it is anyone's guess who makes that decision. That was an irresponsibility on the part of the endangered person, and nobody is to be held legally accountable in this situation. This doesn't mean the state is necessary here, just that it is the only party that is eager to guess what the incapacitated person wants. As you said, every state has different guesses and one size fits all policies.
Yes, but we were speaking of what should be and not what is (this whole discussion was about whether or not the state should be involved in marriage, for example.) I said that citizenship shouldn't be a thing, nor should deportation be a thing. They are separate issues that need to be addressed separately from the question of whether or not the state should be involved in marriage on the statutory level. Nevertheless, if the state could declare common law marriage as a means to get a green card in the event there is no statutory marriage and that would fix that problem easily.
* From second link, "Often, minimum wage laws are decided at the state or regional level, and even when not, federal level increases are only binding in certain states. This has been used in previous literature to evaluate the effects of minimum wages on earnings and employment levels. This paper introduces a spatial equilibrium model to think about the seemingly conflicting findings of this previous literature. It shows that the introduction of minimum wages can lead to an increase or a decrease in population depending on the local labor demand elasticity and on how unemployment benefits are financed. The paper provides empirical evidence consistent with the model. On average, increases in minimum wages lead to increases in average wages, decreases in employment and net population loss of low-skilled workers. The implied low-skilled local labor demand elasticity is estimated to be between -.4 and -.7."
