[extropy-chat] Re: Marriage (Was: White House...)

[David Lubkin]

At 03:22 PM 2/28/2004 +0000, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

>In summary, I find Card's essay intellectually dishonest, off topic,
>and short of reasoned argument, and I'm sorry I spent the time
>reading it.

Card's arguments remind me of S. I. Hayakawa essays I read recently, that 
argue the evolutionary value of monogamy and marriage. The position of 
both, and Heinlein, is that the most fundamental obligation of a society is 
to encourage and protect the cycle of creation, nurturing, and transition 
to competent adult status of children, in order to continue.

(Heinlein: "All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and 
young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or 
folly which can -- and must -- be dumped in emergency to preserve this 
prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other 
basic is possible.")

While Heinlein prefers an expansive definition of marriage, all three argue 
that marriage does and should exist primarily as a framework for the sake 
of children; any benefits to the spouses involved are incidental.

It seems to me that this role for marriage belongs in the region of 
distinction between limited-government libertarianism and 
anarcho-capitalism, along with public schools, defense, and pollution control.

An anarchist solution is that marriage is a private contract between two or 
more competent individuals. If various individuals believe that some form 
of marriage is (is not) beneficial, they are free to advocate for (against) 
it, or to provide incentives (disincentives) for those who engage in it.

(In Israel, the Jewish Agency, nominally a private organization, wants to 
encourage Jewish population growth. They provide assistance for individuals 
and families that move there and cash gifts to Jewish mothers in Israel 
upon the birth of each child.)

A consistent libertarian view, however, would be that the definition, 
mechanism, and benefits of state-sponsored marital contracts be limited to 
core commons goals, akin to limiting defense functions to direct protection 
of the national territory.

In either perspective, and perhaps for liberals and social conservatives, 
there's a benefit to offering a menu of marital contracts. One of the 
problems with the current system is that you either get married or you don't.

If you do, you've agreed to a fixed set of obligations and benefits.

If you don't, the courts will still hold you to certain obligations. Some 
-- but not all -- of the fixed marital benefits, such as medical power of 
attorney or inheritance, can be voluntarily acquired, but the process for 
doing so is unnecessarily complicated.

One benefit which cannot be acquired without marriage, which I've yet to 
hear mentioned in the national debate, is spousal privilege in criminal 
proceedings. (For an anarchist, of course, availability of spousal 
privilege would simply be a distinction between PPL offerings.)


-- David Lubkin.