View Single Post


September 6th, 2007, 18:26
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
If you disagree, disagree and maybe even tell me why you disagree, but there's no need to be rude.
You're the one who's being rude, if you're intentionally misunderstanding what I say, as I think you were — the next paragraphs in your posting made it fairly clear that you understood perfectly well what I meant by "restricting the freedom to make contracts."

I simply replied to your comment stating that there are regulations on what sort of contracts you are allowed to write but not regulating contracts is not the same as reducing freedoms.
No, JemyM, that's not it. Any restriction to freedom is a restriction to freedom. Some of these restrictions may be defensible, but they're still restrictions. For example, the principle that one human being may not own another human being may be agreed to supersede the principle that consenting adults are free to enter into contracts.

What's the point with state recognizing a marriage if there's nothing that comes from the contract? We have many things in our lives that we consider important and we write contracts about many things, I do not see why marriage is so different that it needs unique regulations.
It doesn't need "unique" regulations any more than real estate transactions need "unique" regulations. However, just like real estate transactions, it does need *specific* regulations, since the domain of concepts in which it deals is specific: namely, that of inheritance, responsibility for children, and responsibility for everyone involved. Or do you disagree?
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO


Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540