Search
Who's new
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 15 guests online.
Frontpage FeedActive Posters
Users posting in the last 30 days:
- Crystalnye7971 - 20 posts
Navigation
User login
Recent comments
-
smoked salmon (not verified):
-
carpentry contractor ma (not verified):
-
carpentry contractor ma (not verified):
-
rqjqqzfyada (not verified):
-
kamal (not verified):
-
business immigration canada (not verified):
-
business immigration canada (not verified):
-
abhishek644 (not verified):
-
abhishek644 (not verified):
-
Anonymous (not verified):
Recent Trackbacks
Popular Posts
- The Blogosphere: A Kosmos
- Workers: The Faceless, Interchangeable Cog
- Baby Steps or Cold Turkey
- Public Goods, Public Bads, and NASA
- Political Child Abuse
- Tell Me What to Do!
- Lessons from the Second City
- Economic Puzzle Involving Stock Ownership (Part II)
- Pop Culture Individualism
- Hope vs. Belief (Part II)
- Build Applications, Not Infrastructure
- May Day 2006: A Day of Remembrance
- The Hanover Street Shoe-Shine Boys
- Will the AMA Vote Against Self-Interest If I Become A Member?
- How to Combat Economic Ignorance: A Proposition
- Toward a Fallibilist Synthesis
- The Other Vouchers
- Strange Omissions
Yes, "customs matter" was
Yes, "customs matter" was the point I was trying to make with my example of an implicit contract.
I'm not sure if one can (or should be able to) explicitly override duties to children created through casual sex. Why should the duty of child raising fall exclusively to the mother? It takes (at least) two to tango.