The Abolishment of Modern Indentured Servitude

Page 5 of 6 [ 94 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

25 May 2011, 10:12 pm

leejosepho wrote:

ikorack wrote:

A parent is not a parent solely by his own declaration, you can deny you're a parent all you want but it is the state which has the ultimate say in whether or not you have parental rights and obligations. At least that is how it is currently for men.

You are not incorrect there, but you are too-quickly lumping too many things together as one.

When a child is born, someone either "declares himself" the child's father or else the state typically goes looking for him and does the declaring for him. Yes, the father can deny all he wants, but nobody is going to begin determining any parental rights, responsibilities or obligations until after the matter of his actual fatherhood has been "cast in stone", so to speak.

I think you are mistaken about what it takes to cast fatherhood in stone, in many states a default judgment can affirm paternity.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sour ... gle+Search

^information on default paternity declarations.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... 2Mtn-RnQ-w

^showing that default judgments on paternity can include child support orders(yes it is only one state, but this isn't uncommon practice)

Quote:

ikorack wrote:

... or when the state declares him a parent ...

That typically happens when a father denies being a parent.

And sometimes when the father cannot be found.

Quote:

ikorack wrote:

I do not see how this is agreeable.

Hopefully I have helped to clear some things up there!

Not really. You've explained how some of the concepts work but these still are not things I can agree with. That is they are wrong in my opinion.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

25 May 2011, 10:23 pm

ikorack wrote:

I think you are mistaken about what it takes to cast fatherhood in stone, in many states a default judgment can affirm paternity.

Not being fluent in legalese, I can say that is not inconsistent with what I meant to be saying.

ikorack wrote:

... And sometimes when the father cannot be found.

Yes.

ikorack wrote:

You've explained how some of the concepts work but these still are not things I can agree with. That is they are wrong in my opinion.

I think you must not be as literal-minded as I ...

I also disagree with some of the things I have mentioned, yet they are still hard fact.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

25 May 2011, 10:24 pm

heylelshalem wrote:

there are two creatures of capitalism. There is the master. And there is the worker. There is hardly any types in between. There is the middle but he is stil subserviant to the master. In our country 300 people control 90 percent of the wealth. We are forced to dance for the crumbs. We are forced to beg for health benefits for when we get sick, we are forced to beg for a living wage. WE are forced to do without and take on the burden of our eventual debt to survive.. but WE are to blame for our poverty. This is a farce and a pyramid scheme and a totalitarian circus run by social darwinists and sick facists. If capitalism was truely free the wealth would be more freely spread amidst the masses. but it is clutched and horded by a few. there is no democracy in the markets..there is only tyranny.

Well said, imo.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

25 May 2011, 10:27 pm

leejosepho wrote:

ikorack wrote:

I think you are mistaken about what it takes to cast fatherhood in stone, in many states a default judgment can affirm paternity.

Not being fluent in legalese, I can say that is not inconsistent with what I meant to be saying.

ikorack wrote:

... And sometimes when the father cannot be found.

Yes.

ikorack wrote:

You've explained how some of the concepts work but these still are not things I can agree with. That is they are wrong in my opinion.

I think you must not be as literal-minded as I ...

I also disagree with some of the things I have mentioned, yet they are still hard fact.

Yes what you have said are explanations of the current legal system and while it does make them facts of a sort it does not make them right nor does it invalidate anything I have said here or compel my agreement.(I am fairly certain you understand this but I figure I would spell it out anyways)

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

25 May 2011, 10:45 pm

ikorack wrote:

Yes what you have said are explanations of the current legal system and while it does make them facts of a sort it does not make them right ...

We agree.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

25 May 2011, 11:02 pm

ikorack wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

ikorack wrote:

Freedom, Liberty. yadayada

Alimonies are against freedom and liberty how?

Alimony forces you to work for someone else or go to jail regardless of your wishes.

Freedom and liberty are not about your wishes. I cannot take away other people's cake just because I wish to and expect no consequences from my actions.

When you got married, you signed a contract with the state and the spouse. Alimony goes against freedom as much as having to follow the clauses of any other contract you signed goes against freedom.

Quote:

Child Support does the same. That is it takes away your freedom to make choices concerning your own labor.

If you stayed married you would still have to spend on your children. If you did not , social services would find out you are not being responsible about them and take measures.

I'd agree that there should be a way to lose the responsibility in case the mother wanted to go through pregnancy and you disagreed. This should be doable with a simple process to do before birth that would loose you up from child support. If the decision power goes to a single party ( and in case of abortion, it should go to the woman) then so should the responsibility of the decision. Of course, as a result of going through this responsibility you would also lose any right to being called the father of the kid and that means any say regarding his/her education/etc. And of course you should get a fine for getting a woman pregnant when you didn't intend to go with the pregnancy. I would say 1000 USD.

Failure to do the legal process, would show that you wanted the kid. If you wanted the kid, then screw you, admit your responsibility and pay up.

_________________
.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

25 May 2011, 11:14 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

Failure to do the legal process, would show [-- a preponderance of circumstantial evidence --] that you wanted the [child] ... [so] screw you, admit your responsibility and pay up.

Yep, something like that! And again:

There is simply no such thing as free sex!

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

25 May 2011, 11:16 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

ikorack wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

ikorack wrote:

Freedom, Liberty. yadayada

Alimonies are against freedom and liberty how?

Alimony forces you to work for someone else or go to jail regardless of your wishes.

Freedom and liberty are not about your wishes. I cannot take away other people's cake just because I wish to and expect no consequences from my actions.

Not directly, but indirectly they are. Alimony would limit my ability to act on my wishes effectively, aka my effectiveness to make choices.

Quote:

When you got married, you signed a contract with the state and the spouse. Alimony goes against freedom as much as having to follow the clauses of any other contract you signed goes against freedom.

The regulation of marriage is not governed by contract law, else gay marriage and polygamy would not be issues. Alimony is also not allowed to be signed away, or that is to say, any agreements by a woman to forfeit alimony in case of a divorce can be ignored by a court when deciding whether or not Alimony is to be assigned. And I am not married it's a bit odd for you to speak like I am. The laws governing alimony can also be changed by the government any time during the marriage.

So marriage can not really be compared to contracts.

Quote:

Child Support does the same. That is it takes away your freedom to make choices concerning your own labor.

If you stayed married you would still have to spend on your children. If you did not , social services would find out you are not being responsible about them and take measures.

Marriage is separate from child support.

Quote:

I'd agree that there should be a way to lose the responsibility in case the mother wanted to go through pregnancy and you disagreed. This should be doable with a simple process to do before birth that would loose you up from child support. If the decision power goes to a single party ( and in case of abortion, it should go to the woman) then so should the responsibility of the decision. Of course, as a result of going through this responsibility you would also lose any right to being called the father of the kid and that means any say regarding his/her education/etc. And of course you should get a fine for getting a woman pregnant when you didn't intend to go with the pregnancy. I would say 1000 USD.

And if the man does not know the woman is pregnant? The presumption outside of marriage should not lean towards fatherhood, unless there are agreements in place of course. The fine idea is ridiculous, unless of course you can prove the intent was to impregnate.

Quote:

Failure to do the legal process, would show that you wanted the kid. If you wanted the kid, then screw you, admit your responsibility and pay up.

Your thinking is backwards. You say the law should assume that a man wants something and put it up to him to prove otherwise, the law shouldn't be assuming any such thing without evidence.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

25 May 2011, 11:26 pm

ikorack wrote:

Quote:

Failure to do the legal process, would show that you wanted the kid. If you wanted the kid, then screw you, admit your responsibility and pay up.

Your thinking is backwards. You say the law should assume that a man wants something and put it up to him to prove otherwise, the law shouldn't be assuming any such thing without evidence.

We are talking about civil law here, not criminal law, and the state simply must have certain "defaults" to use in situations where no contrary petitions or appeals are being presented. For example:

My daughters' step-father had filed a petition to adopt, and then the state gave me an opportunity to respond, but if I had not responded by a certain date, my parental rights would have been taken from me and given to the step-father.

Getting back to the specific issue at hand ...

If a mother says "George" is the father of her child and "George" does not speak up or show up and say/prove otherwise, "George" will "default" to the status of "father". He might later contest that and prove otherwise, but the state did not have to prove anything to declare him "father" in the first place.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

25 May 2011, 11:41 pm

leejosepho wrote:

ikorack wrote:

Quote:

Failure to do the legal process, would show that you wanted the kid. If you wanted the kid, then screw you, admit your responsibility and pay up.

Your thinking is backwards. You say the law should assume that a man wants something and put it up to him to prove otherwise, the law shouldn't be assuming any such thing without evidence.

It would be better to ask George. The state does not Need to make an assumption it just does. If they had made that assumption what could you have done? I suspect nothing, or at the very least it would cost you significantly.

And as I just pointed out, the default ''father" can not always contest his paternity after a certain point. They assume he is the father regardless of evidence otherwise, and while there have been recent laws passed that undo this somewhat if the other father can be found and proven via DNA this is still not the case in many states.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

26 May 2011, 12:14 am

ikorack wrote:

It would be better to ask George.

Certainly.

ikorack wrote:

The state does not Need to make an assumption it just does.

If the state wants to try to find "George" and use the point of its gun to collect child support, it first "needs" to declare "George" as "father".

ikorack wrote:

If they had made that assumption what could you have done? I suspect nothing, or at the very least it would cost you significantly.

Once an "honest effort" of whatever kind had been made to make me aware, yes, it would have been extremely difficult for me to later do anything if I had not responded.

ikorack wrote:

And as I just pointed out, the default ''father" can not always contest his paternity after a certain point. They assume he is the father regardless of evidence otherwise, and while there have been recent laws passed that undo this somewhat if the other father can be found and proven via DNA this is still not the case in many states.

I had not been aware of that, but I do not doubt your report.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

26 May 2011, 2:57 am

~peeks in~

Are we really bitching about being required to financially-support yo damn kids?

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

26 May 2011, 7:02 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:

~peeks in~

Are we really bitching about being required to financially-support yo damn kids?

No.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

CaptainTrips222
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,100

26 May 2011, 12:37 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:

So, like, child support and alimony bug you more than a multi-billion dollar global sex trafficking trade,
as far as "indentured servitude"?

Strange, that.

Yeah, strange you even brought it up. It's totally irrelevant.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

27 May 2011, 3:12 am

CaptainTrips222 wrote:

ValentineWiggin wrote:

So, like, child support and alimony bug you more than a multi-billion dollar global sex trafficking trade,
as far as "indentured servitude"?

Strange, that.

Yeah, strange you even brought it up. It's totally irrelevant.

I thought mentioning slavery would be relevant in a thread whose title mentions it.

Silly me.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

27 May 2011, 6:16 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:

I thought mentioning slavery would be relevant in a thread whose title mentions it.

"The Abolishment of Modern Indentured Servitude" :roll:

Better get the screen cleaner out ...

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Page 5 of 6 [ 94 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

The Abolishment of Modern Indentured Servitude Post Reply New Topic

The Abolishment of Modern Indentured Servitude