Reply With Quote
In English, we say Anglo-Saxon. What do you say in Portugal?
Is wanting a reduction in legislation quite contrary to appreciating the role of law? I guess I don't see the opposition you're alluding to, man.
That's all well and good, but perhaps I mistakenly assumed we were talking about contracts that happen on a human scale? So I guess I don't understand why your examples are germane. As I said in my last post to you, handshake deals probably are the most common contract, but if they are broken and the parties cannot resolve the issue peaceably, they will seek out arbiters with the authority to enforce justice. At the end of this spectrum of justice is the law, and the buck stops there. So if I'm speaking in absolutes, I feel the law is the ultimate arbiter and custodian of justice even if not every contract need invoke it at the outset. Does that make sense? Sorry... I get wordy when I'm tired.
PS, in international biz, most people use sovereign risk as a way to moor their contracts to a known legislative en y and its protections.
I don't think so, no. In that case, we'd be back to a handshake deal between the mother and the father that the law was then forced to arbitrate. I guess from this you would argue that because there was no paper contract, the law wasn't involved? But as I said above, the fact that the government becomes the ultimate source of justice means -- to me -- that it is implicit in any contract. Nobody else has the ultimate authority to take the child away.
In English, we say Anglo-Saxon. What do you say in Portugal?
Um, since when is it a crime to call anybody anything? I mean, I suppose if you call them something enough time to have it be "harassment" then it's a crime, and certainly if you're calling them something while beating the out of them, then it's a crime. But just calling someone a name isn't a "crime" - but it does make you an asshole.
Oh and what the does hate crime legislation have to do with gay marriage? Could we stick to one topic, please?
They say it both ways, anglosaxão or anglosaxónico. Saxonic exists as a word in the English language, right?
Eh, I was making an unnecessary and lateral, for this discussion, distinction between law and legislation.
Law, in the modern sense, has two meanings. The nomos aspect of law, or the norms established by the evolution of culture and ins utions is different from the thesis aspect, which is the statute of law passed by a legislature.
Rules of conduct can be legislated, Hayek writes, but statues passed by legislatures do not have to become rules of conduct. Modern governments tend to have organizations within a larger bureaucracy that make its rules of conduct different from that of private organizations. These differences are designated by the application of public and private laws. Public law applies to organizations and can be made, Hayek argues, while private law is determined by the spontaneous order principle. They are not, the author emphasizes, the same as public and private welfare. Spontaneous order creates laws that govern the general welfare, and is more important in determining general welfare than the services and benefits some citizens receive associated with government organizations.
http://unix.dfn.org/af_FAHayek_vol1.shtml
Okay, we're in basic agreement - even though I think that private forums of justice can be used to solve disputes arising from marriage contracts, I can accept the state jurisdiction as the last resort for contractual disputes. My point is that it doesn't follow that the government has to regulate the contract of marriage. Marriage contracts would still be valid even if agreed without the explicit recognition by the state. Courts can and do enforce private contracts, as long as they don't violate superior law. Delete any piece of legislation in which the word "marriage" appears and no problem whatsoever would exist - in fact, I believe that would reinforce the status of the marriage contract.That's all well and good, but perhaps I mistakenly assumed we were talking about contracts that happen on a human scale? So I guess I don't understand why your examples are germane. As I said in my last post to you, handshake deals probably are the most common contract, but if they are broken and the parties cannot resolve the issue peaceably, they will seek out arbiters with the authority to enforce justice. At the end of this spectrum of justice is the law, and the buck stops there. So if I'm speaking in absolutes, I feel the law is the ultimate arbiter and custodian of justice even if not every contract need invoke it at the outset. Does that make sense? Sorry... I get wordy when I'm tired.
PS, in international biz, most people use sovereign risk as a way to moor their contracts to a known legislative en y and its protections.
I don't think so, no. In that case, we'd be back to a handshake deal between the mother and the father that the law was then forced to arbitrate. I guess from this you would argue that because there was no paper contract, the law wasn't involved? But as I said above, the fact that the government becomes the ultimate source of justice means -- to me -- that it is implicit in any contract. Nobody else has the ultimate authority to take the child away.
The point I was trying to make is why is it that people make a federal case when someone is called a or ######? However, if someone is called an asshole or er then it's okay. I'm sure some people probably don't care being called an asshole or er but I bet a good number of people probably don't like and it hurts their feelings.
Not that I've ever heard. Your use of it was the first I ever saw. And I've read a little.
I studied Anglo-Saxon, and I still have the seven volumes of the ASPR.
I find through cursory googling and in my OED that saxonic is actually a word, though I still maintain its usage is minor and con uous.
If you do it so much it ruins the work environment, then maybe you have a personal problem, and yes, maybe also a civil rights lawsuit on your hands.
As you sow, so shall you reap.
At any rate, Anglo-Saxonic does not appear in the 1895 OED. Neither it nor saxonic appear in my American Heritage Dictionary. Nor have I heard either uttered in conversation, ever.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-14-2009 at 02:25 AM.
Anglo-Saxon is the usual adjectival form.
Saxonic is peculiar and perhaps academic, while Anglo-Saxonic is wholly nonexistent in the idiom as far as I can tell. (Saving your own idiosyncratic usage of course.)
So if someone is called an asshole, sucker, or er then it's not a federal case and their civil rights weren't violated? And you should basically just suck it up and take it? I just think it's funny and a little sad how many double standards there are in America when it comes to prejudice and racism.
It's not a federal case either way. I just think it's funny and a little sad how much this bothers you.
It doesn't really bother me. I just think it's interesting.
Of course it bothers you. You've been harping on the same point for two days.
If people have appealed to the government to regulate these contracts, it does, in fact, fall upon them to do so. Trying to suggest that something that, at present, is so strictly codified falls under the rubric of hand-shake deals seems a little slippery to me.
I don't know, I thought saxonic was a word, maybe it isn't. Don't you live in Texas or something? Perhaps it's a word used in other circles, albeit not the ones someone like you would be familiar with.
When have "people" appealed to government? The judiciary branch can regulate disputes among individuals without the consequence that legislature has to write legislation to address those situations and codify the law. Contracts are valid and enforceable even when the government isn't part of them.
I don't understand why you keep trying to frame the discussion as though there weren't hundreds of years of nuptial law on the books. We aren't talking about some Enlightenment-style pre-legal state of nature, we're talking about this country. Present day.
As for people appealing to the government to regulate marriages, I'd guess it probably has something to do with marriages having a strong component of asset consolidation.
I'm talking about that country, current day. What exactly would happen if those hundred of benefits granted only to married people were repealed? The society would dissolve in hedonistic chaos?
I guess one could be married without any kind of asset consolidation and vice-versa. I still don't see how that forces to the codification of marriage contracts into legislation.
I guess I don't really care to venture an opinion on what would happen since there seems to be no demand for it to happen in this country, present day.
And yet that's how it is.
An argumentum ad populum.
And yet the way it is doesn't mean it is the way it ought to be.
Are you still arguing you're talking about reality? Because it seems like you have an ideal to which you're trying to bend reality to. Didn't you just make some extravagant post pooh-pooh-ing Libertarians for just this sort of behavior?
Saxonic is really a word, albeit an unusual one. There is no support for Anglo-Saxonic that I can find. Your own use of it appears to be hypercorrected by analogy.
I certainly do. I hail from the backwater of Austin, Tx, though I was born in San Antonio.
Yeah, I probably shouldn't make so have made so much of the commonly-used adjectival form of Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Saxon.
Mogro's right. The fact that neither my two OE professors, nor any of the secondary literature I saw, nor any of my fellow students ever said Anglo-Saxonic even once may not count for very much next to mogro's knack for analogy.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-16-2009 at 02:27 AM. Reason: Anglo-Saxon
Basically she is saying marriage is a joke now a days and why not let the gays in the circus too. She may have a point.
And if you don't believe it, you're crazy.Oh. It's a full on pissin match. :popcorn
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions