Libertarians issue warning to Tea Partiers Which do the tea partiers hate more ?

[Garb]

Oh... so you do support government interference?

If you choose to do so yes. Don't make in mandatory though. If I want the government in my life, I'll invite them in. Otherwise they should stay the hell out of my life.

 

[mrjarrell]

And what do you do when one party decides they aren't going to abide by the results of the "binding" arbitration?

I would send my agents to enforce the arbitration agreement. If it concerned splitting up of property then my agents would retrieve my property. Arbitration works. That's why so many companies use it and why courts won't help you if you decide to renege on your agreement.
Arbitration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Joe Williams]

I would send my agents to enforce the arbitration agreement. If it concerned splitting up of property then my agents would retrieve my property. Arbitration works. That's why so many companies use it and why courts won't help you if you decide to renege on your agreement.
Arbitration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And when they resist your attack, backed by no government or law, what then?

 

[Garb]

And when they resist your attack, backed by no government or law, what then?

Wipe your s%&* all over it and let them have it.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

And when they resist your attack, backed by no government or law, what then?

Ah, good ol' Joe, always arguing the baseless argument just to be contrary. Yes, arbitration does eventually end up involving the government at its most extreme point. All contracts do. **News Flash** that's one of the few proper purposes of government. You framed a false argument which you assumed libertarians would agree with (which they don't), then started spouting stupid questions about that falsely assumed argument. I'm thinking of a deep-colored fish at the moment...

If you really don't understand how contracts work at your age...methinks there's a problem.

 

[Joe Williams]

Ah, good ol' Joe, always arguing the baseless argument just to be contrary. Yes, arbitration does eventually end up involving the government at its most extreme point. All contracts do. **News Flash** that's one of the few proper purposes of government. You framed a false argument which you assumed libertarians would agree with (which they don't), then started spouting stupid questions about that falsely assumed argument. I'm thinking of a deep-colored fish at the moment...

If you really don't understand how contracts work at your age...methinks there's a problem.

I understand perfectly how contracts work. I don't think you do, and when faced with the reality that they are backed by government force, you start foaming at the mouth and spouting the kind of infantile garbage in your post.

 

[Garb]

I understand perfectly how contracts work. I don't think you do, and when faced with the reality that they are backed by government force, you start foaming at the mouth and spouting the kind of infantile garbage in your post.

What it seems to me is that you're saying that since government MIGHT become involved, they should just automatically become involved to save a lot of hassle... I'm sure you'll argue that point, but I'm not sure why else you would take the position that you are.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I understand perfectly how contracts work. I don't think you do, and when faced with the reality that they are backed by government force, you start foaming at the mouth and spouting the kind of infantile garbage in your post.

I've not been "faced with the reality" any time recently. You're the only person in this thread that even proposed a theoretical system in which they do not eventually meet government force. What I believe most of us in this thread desire is for technical marriage (as opposed to religious marriage) to be a personal contract which utilizes third party arbitration up until the point that one or more parties do not abide by the decision of the arbitrator, at which point the court system & law enforcement would become involved.

 

[Pocketman]

I was going to stop responding to this thread because a) we've hijacked it and b) pretty much whipped this horse. I can not however let Paco's comment go without a reply.

... What I believe most of us in this thread desire is for technical marriage (as opposed to religious marriage) to be a personal contract which utilizes third party arbitration up until the point that one or more parties do not abide by the decision of the arbitrator, at which point the court system & law enforcement would become involved.

Holy moly son, what you describe is exactly what currently exists. People enter a marriage (contract). If it doesn't work out they enter counseling (arbitration). If the counseling fails, they usually end up in court and often law enforcement gets involved somewhere during the process.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

How about this... Big Govt out of it, States handle it, at they're own risk. Let them have California (Not called the land of Fruits 'N Nuts for nothing) All the rightist, pack up, and let that mother sink....

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I was going to stop responding to this thread because a) we've hijacked it and b) pretty much whipped this horse. I can not however let Paco's comment go without a reply.


Holy moly son, what you describe is exactly what currently exists. People enter a marriage (contract). If it doesn't work out they enter counseling (arbitration). If the counseling fails, they usually end up in court and often law enforcement gets involved somewhere during the process.

Except, currently, there are religion-based parameters placed upon it, as the contract is drafted by the state.