Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion, in reply to Andre,
The fact is that the currently retiring generation voted to end paying for superannuation beyond paying tax by installing Muldoon as PM
Funny way to see it. My folks never voted for him. Even if they had, there have been 7 other PMs in NZ since who had various mandates to do whatever they did. The decisions of Muldoon were never set in stone, and if they were I would smash the stone. I was never even old enough to vote just what I thought about him, and don't feel any ongoing need to buy into whatever was motivating 1970s NZ voters.
-
Up Front: How About Now?, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
If you're a moral conservative with a grain of principle, it seems bleeding obvious to me that no-fault divorce (and the erosion of the social and legal stigma attached) is more of a threat to "the institution of traditional marriage and the family" than marriage equality.
Not so sure about that. I'd rather say that marriage equality poses no threat at all, and no-fault divorce is actually good for it, because high cost divorce creates perverse outcomes for families - prolonged misery and all that goes with it, neglect, domestic violence, depression and suicide, spousal murder, sudden abandonment, secret adultery etc.
-
Up Front: How About Now?, in reply to Danielle,
It was really unexpectedly meaningful. Fuck anyone who wants to deny people that, if they want it.
I had a catholic wedding, so some of the things that were said were just silly (me being agnostic and all). It was expensive and OTT. But it was also one of the happiest times of my life. Some people are born to marry.
But there's nothing wrong at all with not wanting a bar of it either - it doesn't cast any aspersions on the depth of relationships formed. Nor does opting for divorce, even repeatedly. One of my mother's oldest friends opened my eyes to that. Now onto her 4th husband, she commented that she's simply not someone who can be unmarried, when asked about why she was bothering to marry again. To her it was profoundly important, and making a big occasion of the last one was a good idea, a wedding is just a big party after all, providing nice opportunities for people who haven't seen each other for years to catch up. It was a declaration to her children, as much as to anyone else, that she was serious about "George the 4th", as he is affectionately known, was moving on with her life with him, and the previous men (their actual fathers) were out of her romantic picture altogether, irreconcilably. Hard, but also true. They're much better disposed to George than they were to "Trev the 3rd", and I can't help but feel that her decision to make a big ceremony out of it helped somewhat with that.
-
OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion, in reply to DexterX,
Without wanting to comment directly on these peoples' circumstance it doesn't seem to fit with what I call aspiration or what I apsire for in my life.
Yes, they are making quite a strange choice, IMHO. They could sell one of the businesses and keep their kids toys. It sort of points to where their priorities lie.
-
OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion, in reply to Sacha,
Though I believe there are still presumptions of good faith in both cases.
Well you typically wouldn't agree to a contract if there was no good faith. But the good thing about them is you have protection against bad faith, so it makes good faith all the more likely.
Not certain, though. I don't think the insurance companies in Chch are showing good faith. But at least their claimants have actual legal documents giving them some form of protection against total bad faith.
This is probably a likely outcome of contracts in which there is a winner and a loser, that bad faith is constant. A lot of contracts aren't like that - employment contracts are meant to be for mutual benefit, so good faith on both sides generally benefits both sides.
ACC is another institution much like what I was referring to, as is the EQC. Institutionalizing protection of citizens against disaster in the form of insurances makes really good sense to me. Compulsory 3rd party in vehicles makes sense too, mostly to protect the other people on the road from disastrous financial damage.
-
OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion, in reply to Sacha,
That's because in the time the term was used, agreements were supposed to be based on decency and trust.
I'm not so sure about that. The theory is quite old, but the laws around contracts are older, and it's always been considered foolish to base them on decency and trust alone. An ironclad document, and a court before which disputes can be settled are basic ideas in good contracting. That's why I don't like the term used, because there's no way our relationship with the state is written down in an ironclad way, at least not on the side involving the state's obligations to us. Nor do we have any real way of enforcing any of those obligations - there is no body standing over the state to twist their arm and make them pay.
Furthermore, I don't really see how it could be, in a democracy, because the leadership changes constantly, and is vested with the power to make important decisions. They didn't sign the contract you made either. Possibly, if executive and legislature were strictly separated, and election promises could be given the form of contracts, then it might work. Or it could be a shockingly inefficient way of managing a country.
Personally, I think making more institutions that have tight laws surrounding political interference in them is a better idea. We already have many of these, such as courts, the Reserve Bank, the Police, etc. There could be more, some of them dedicated to making sure that certain ways of managing money are followed strictly. My opinion is that this would melt away class difference faster than any other method - trainer wheels to socialism. It would be very hard for capitalists to object to it, because good money management is something they're always on about.
The only class of people I haven't really taken into account are people who won't take on "gainful" employment. They're tricky, because it's hard to see sheer laziness as a trait worthy of encouragement. However, I'm pretty much a socialist about these people - I think they're a very important group, one of the most dynamic ones that we have in society, because they reject the social norms on value, or at least their own value. Given a comfortable life, this class produces some of the most important artists, innovators, social facilitators, caregivers, and just thinkers, that have ever been. The difficult part is that their "economic" contribution is often negative. The only idea I've really got for those people is to continue to support them, preferably in some reasonable comfort. There are several people in my life like this, and none of them are bone-idle. One is the hardest working person I know, my sister. But she works on her art, and it doesn't pay. Others do a lot of unpaid work, and work on their own pet projects in the meantime, which also don't pay. Some of the more interesting projects that I'm in contact with, actually, since they are not constrained by an immediate economic objective, and thus have the true inventiveness that you find in labours of love.
-
I know you’re exaggerating here
Gee: I was being extremely sarcastic.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Craig - were you saying that worrying about divorce amongst gays would only make sense if it were also accompanied by a serious attempt to reduce divorce amongst straights. Your suggestion of raising the bar for divorce was to show the hypocrisy of taking concern over other people's chances of divorce (or at least pretending to) whilst at the same time advocating making it piss-easy for heteros? Even worse, actually taking advantage of it being easy by marrying several times, whilst simultaneously pontificating about the dangers of divorce in gay marriage?
I see the point, but also wish to say that I think raising the cost of divorce is a bad idea (and I think you weren't really advocating that). It's already a hard enough choice for the people who do it, without throwing state sanctioned punishment in there. Of course to anyone considering divorce, I'd advise thinking very carefully about it, but who really needs that advice? It's likely to be the only thing you've been thinking about for years beforehand. Considering how damned easy it is to get married, practically all you have to do is say "I do" and spend a few minutes signing some papers, I don't think the divorce ceremony should be any harder.
-
Up Front: How About Now?, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
You also don't have regular baby-sitters. Much of my first 10 years of parenting I was known as the person who never went out on Saturday night.
Heh, I've taken to inviting people over when I'm on babysitting detail. Has big advantages - no driving home at the end.
But actually my situation isn't as extreme as yours. I've only put the wild and wasteful ocean between myself and the in-laws - my own parents are available for babysitting. Also, my mother-in-law is so congenial that I'm happy to have her staying for extended periods, I stopped referring to her as MILFO after the first visit. It's the FIL whom I'm happy to contain to once-yearly drivebys.
-
Up Front: How About Now?, in reply to Tansy,
I hope this post doesn't seem too much like spam or advertising. *is nervous*
No way, it's relevant and there's no "no link whoring" policy here anyway. Welcome.
-
OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion, in reply to Bart Janssen,
They entered into a contract with their government.
See, I keep sticking on that point. Can you show me a copy of this contract? Can you provide evidence that the parties involved understood and agreed with it? Are there any signatories? Was there offer, acceptance and consideration? Was there some undertaking to show how and where the money would come from in perpetuity?
I've never liked the idea of the social contract metaphor. It's not like a contract at all. There's no court to enforce it. There's no legislative framework it fits into.
I especially don't like it because it doesn't work. If you want to contract with the government, it pays to get the damned thing on paper. My super fund is like that. They can't rip that off without the courts getting involved.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 563 564 565 566 567 … 1066 Older→ First