Save the family - end marriage
O.k., I'm pro-marriage as a religious institution. To me it's a sacrament. I don't necessarily agree with the author that the state needs to be removed from the equation entirely but he does make a compelling argument and his logic really can't be faulted;
SAVE THE FAMILY - END MARRIAGE
by MotivationMan
There is a lot of talk these days about preserving traditional family values. It is pretty clear that the traditional nuclear family is under siege. Divorce, out of wedlock births, unmarried cohabitation, homosexuality, and abortion are all on the rise and will continue to skyrocket. Many people want to go back to the old ways. But that is a bunch of reactionary nonsense. The fact of the matter is that when these type of changes occur in a society they never change back. This is why conservatism wont work here...there is nothing to conserve. For numerous economic and cultural reasons the traditional nuclear family is rapidly disappearing and there is nothing we can do about that unless we want to start stoning people like they do in muslim countries...which we all know will never happen. Real solutions look forward. We have to soberly look at the systematic social trends and provide a new solution.
The main problem is the fact that we have a mixed system. The relics of nuclear family culture are still entrenched in our legal code while at the same time the people have begun to culturally move away from the institution of marriage. Our marriage laws were written at a time when women were socially weaker and the majority opinion was that they needed special legal protection to compensate. This is born out in modern divorce proceedings as any man who has ever been to family court can tell you. Women are now at economic and social parity (if not better) with men due to affirmative action and the end of industrialism in the west. So the laws that protected them are now obsolete. In fact worse than that they incentivize bad behavior. Family law gives women extreme leverage against men and it is not surprising that they ruthlessly exploit that power. So for those men who do get married it has become a form of legal serfdom to a woman because the threat of rape in divorce court and the prospect of child support and alimony for the foreseeable future. Laws that were made to keep men responsible have turned into a license for women to be irresponsible.
It is clear that the institution of marriage has outlived its usefulness. But what to replace it with? There are two principles that guide my thought here:
1. Freedom of choice comes with the responsibility to deal with the consequences of your choice
2. You get what you incentivize
The first thing we do is end all legal recognition of marriage. If two people (or more) of whatever sex want to have a private ceremony and say they are married that is their prerogative. But the government has nothing to do with it. This means no sharing of property and debt. I would even go so far as to ban joint bank accounts. And since there is no marriage there is no divorce...who owns what is clear from the start and there is no need for a court to divide it up.
But what about the children? Ah yes...the children. It is not really possible anymore to have a rational policy discussion without ruining it by bringing up the ultimate emotive battle cry of "the children". This is where principle 1 comes into play. It is firmly established in our common law that it is the woman and the woman alone that makes the decision of whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. Well and good I say...but the woman alone must deal with the consequences of their choice. If a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy to term then it is her responsibility to take care of the child. Almost needless to say this policy would have to be coupled with the complete and one hundred percent removal of all surrogate parenting functions of the government. The single mother must be utterly alone because the decision to have a kid was hers alone. I'd even go so far as to not even having the father's name on the birth certificate.
What if she can't afford the kid? Well if it were up to me the bastard would be sold into slavery or left to die of exposure...but mercifully for all you mongoloids and other defectives I do not call the shots yet. If a woman has a child she can't afford to support then the state should seize it and put it up for adoption...if nobody will adopt I am sure there are workhouses. This creates a massive disincentive for dysfunctional unattached women to shit out a womb goblin...which is a highly positive social force.
As I have said it must be the woman alone who is legally compelled to support her children...emphasis on the word compelled. A man should have the choice to financially support a woman and her children in what might be called a family arrangement. But this must be one hundred percent voluntary. In this way we create another positive social force. Rather than have an incentive to break up a family and ruin the man the woman now has an incentive to keep the family together and please the man. She must please him...or lose his material support which he can withdraw at any time. This is the essence of principle 2. Our present incentives lead to instability...we must incentivize stability...and anybody who knows anything about women can tell you that giving them all the leverage in a relationship is antithetical to stability.
Our new no marriage system would firstly prevent women who can't afford a child on their own or get a man to voluntarily support them from reproducing. This will solve most of our problems. Secondly it will favor stable families among those who are fit to reproduce by giving men leverage in family arrangements through the freedom to withdraw at any time at no cost. This will curb female excesses and provide an ideal balance of power for the raising of mentally healthy children. The end of marriage need not be the end of the family. Indeed if we end it right it will lead to a much more functional and stable society for the children of the future.
http://www.arthurshall.com/x_2011_marriage.shtml
SAVE THE FAMILY - END MARRIAGE
by MotivationMan
There is a lot of talk these days about preserving traditional family values. It is pretty clear that the traditional nuclear family is under siege. Divorce, out of wedlock births, unmarried cohabitation, homosexuality, and abortion are all on the rise and will continue to skyrocket. Many people want to go back to the old ways. But that is a bunch of reactionary nonsense. The fact of the matter is that when these type of changes occur in a society they never change back. This is why conservatism wont work here...there is nothing to conserve. For numerous economic and cultural reasons the traditional nuclear family is rapidly disappearing and there is nothing we can do about that unless we want to start stoning people like they do in muslim countries...which we all know will never happen. Real solutions look forward. We have to soberly look at the systematic social trends and provide a new solution.
The main problem is the fact that we have a mixed system. The relics of nuclear family culture are still entrenched in our legal code while at the same time the people have begun to culturally move away from the institution of marriage. Our marriage laws were written at a time when women were socially weaker and the majority opinion was that they needed special legal protection to compensate. This is born out in modern divorce proceedings as any man who has ever been to family court can tell you. Women are now at economic and social parity (if not better) with men due to affirmative action and the end of industrialism in the west. So the laws that protected them are now obsolete. In fact worse than that they incentivize bad behavior. Family law gives women extreme leverage against men and it is not surprising that they ruthlessly exploit that power. So for those men who do get married it has become a form of legal serfdom to a woman because the threat of rape in divorce court and the prospect of child support and alimony for the foreseeable future. Laws that were made to keep men responsible have turned into a license for women to be irresponsible.
It is clear that the institution of marriage has outlived its usefulness. But what to replace it with? There are two principles that guide my thought here:
1. Freedom of choice comes with the responsibility to deal with the consequences of your choice
2. You get what you incentivize
The first thing we do is end all legal recognition of marriage. If two people (or more) of whatever sex want to have a private ceremony and say they are married that is their prerogative. But the government has nothing to do with it. This means no sharing of property and debt. I would even go so far as to ban joint bank accounts. And since there is no marriage there is no divorce...who owns what is clear from the start and there is no need for a court to divide it up.
But what about the children? Ah yes...the children. It is not really possible anymore to have a rational policy discussion without ruining it by bringing up the ultimate emotive battle cry of "the children". This is where principle 1 comes into play. It is firmly established in our common law that it is the woman and the woman alone that makes the decision of whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. Well and good I say...but the woman alone must deal with the consequences of their choice. If a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy to term then it is her responsibility to take care of the child. Almost needless to say this policy would have to be coupled with the complete and one hundred percent removal of all surrogate parenting functions of the government. The single mother must be utterly alone because the decision to have a kid was hers alone. I'd even go so far as to not even having the father's name on the birth certificate.
What if she can't afford the kid? Well if it were up to me the bastard would be sold into slavery or left to die of exposure...but mercifully for all you mongoloids and other defectives I do not call the shots yet. If a woman has a child she can't afford to support then the state should seize it and put it up for adoption...if nobody will adopt I am sure there are workhouses. This creates a massive disincentive for dysfunctional unattached women to shit out a womb goblin...which is a highly positive social force.
As I have said it must be the woman alone who is legally compelled to support her children...emphasis on the word compelled. A man should have the choice to financially support a woman and her children in what might be called a family arrangement. But this must be one hundred percent voluntary. In this way we create another positive social force. Rather than have an incentive to break up a family and ruin the man the woman now has an incentive to keep the family together and please the man. She must please him...or lose his material support which he can withdraw at any time. This is the essence of principle 2. Our present incentives lead to instability...we must incentivize stability...and anybody who knows anything about women can tell you that giving them all the leverage in a relationship is antithetical to stability.
Our new no marriage system would firstly prevent women who can't afford a child on their own or get a man to voluntarily support them from reproducing. This will solve most of our problems. Secondly it will favor stable families among those who are fit to reproduce by giving men leverage in family arrangements through the freedom to withdraw at any time at no cost. This will curb female excesses and provide an ideal balance of power for the raising of mentally healthy children. The end of marriage need not be the end of the family. Indeed if we end it right it will lead to a much more functional and stable society for the children of the future.
http://www.arthurshall.com/x_2011_marriage.shtml
Comment