Originally posted by ilikecomicsQuickly skimmed it, will read later. But the "contract" thing is intriguing. Though we already have a form of that in the form of prenuptial agreements.
@robtardWhat do you think of this perspective on marriage ?
https://mises.org/library/marriage-under-influence-idea-contract
But I've never liked that our tax system can favor or not favor people depending if they're married. That needs to go.
Originally posted by Robtard
Quickly skimmed it, will read later. But the "contract" thing is intriguing. Though we already have a form of that in the form of prenuptial agreements.But I've never liked that our tax system can favor or not favor people depending if they're married. That needs to go.
I'm looking forward to your response.
I think that about the taxes as well. To me, creating financial incentives in a system that should be built on something outside of that would be a obvious cause of ultra high divorce rate.
If getting married had no incentives and it was a institution built on mutual sacrifice less bad actors would get married.
Originally posted by Robtard
What do you think about it? Likes, dislikes?
I always reflect on our mutual self interest can lead to, not necessarily, immoral actors acting morally.
In the case of marriage, the evolution of marriage via contract empowered women to be on equal footing with men, minimizing the benefit of coercion through violence.
This was a huge beautiful stride towards the full realization of ubiquitous property rights.
This is why mixing the monopolization of force that is the state with a mutually agreed upon, and thus implicitly non violent (outside of mma or boxing aka mutually agreed upon combat) agreement can only distort it as an institution.
I'm not sure I dislike any opinion in the article.
I don't like the catholic church in general.
However they serve as an example of a social institution, one of the most powerful on the planet, that really wants something, but largely lost their crusade against ending divorce.
This can be contrasted with the political class' ability to act with relative imputiny e.g. starting and maintaining wars, nation building, interfering with business, incarcerating a huge percentage of it's population largely over non violent crimes etc.
And hence why I think the state is a unique organization, whose control is so deep people can't fathom removing it, which always reminds me of the ussr, nk, or any other dictatorial nation.
Originally posted by Klaw
Principled?Sure.
But that doesn't mean the principles are based in anything good or moral.
Hmmm interesting point. Can I probe this a little ?
I'm an atheist, thus christian principles are mostly moot, therefore christian conclusions would never be correct to me.
Is this something like what you mean ?
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Hmmm interesting point. Can I probe this a little ?I'm an atheist, thus christian principles are mostly moot, therefore christian conclusions would never be correct to me.
Is this something like what you mean ?
Feel free to probe.
No.
I'm agnostic myself.
I mean exactly what I said.
Just because you have principled reasons, doesn't mean they're good or moral.
Originally posted by Klaw
Feel free to probe.No.
I'm agnostic myself.
I mean exactly what I said.
Just because you have principled reasons, doesn't mean they're good or moral.
I'm not trying to trick you, I was giving the analogy about religion because I wouldn't respect the principles of christian ideas and was seeing if that's what you meant about having immoral or bad principles.
I'll see if I can try an example but with less controversial material.
Hypothetical: if a guy was chugging a liter of soy sauce, based on the (bad/incorrect) principle that soy sauce is a detoxifying substance.
Is that an example of what you mean by having bad or immoral principles ?
Originally posted by Robtard
What do you think about it? Likes, dislikes?
Gay marriage is more or less the "final straw" for them. They lost the culture war in terms of defending marriage as an institution.
Marriage itself has historically been a mechanism to perpetuate and protect family.
In practice, this of course meant ignoring abuses like tyranical husbands, or turning the eye against infidelity. It did generally result in shaming husbands and wives into sticking together though.
One thing the Right wasn't wrong about, was the effect on eroding marriage's importance, looking at the rise of divorces and single parent homes.
For better or worse.
Personally speaking, I have no desire seeing people locked into a miserable situation. But can't deny a lot of people simply aren't even trying. I mean, a friends sister and her new husband crumbled over sleeping arrangements. She wanted them in the same bed, he didn't.
Plus, he's an avid gamer, and she comes more from socialite background, and was fixated on things like intimacy. She'd speak up her displeasure at him wanting to game instead of cuddle, and he'd blow up.
The icing on the cake was he didn't want a divorce. He came from a Jewish family, from a sect that doesn't believe in it. Like Catholics used to. Got very ugly.
This all happened in less then four months,.it was unreal. Neither of them seemed particularly immature either, but they obviously hadn't grown up yet.