3 ms·

Because it's the state using it's monopoly on violence to interfere with the intimate lives of private citizens. The government doesn't have a right to tell yo

by XorNot 4y ago

Because it's the state using it's monopoly on violence to interfere with the intimate lives of private citizens. The government doesn't have a right to tell you which consenting adults you can be in a relationship with or have sex with, which is what interfering with divorce is trying to do. If the state wants to protect children, then it can focus it's efforts on that and maybe start by not trying to force people who don't get along to live in the same house - again - by it's monopoly on violence. At gunpoint.

cato_the_elder 4y ago
> Because it's the state using it's monopoly on violence > At gunpoint. You could say that about almost all functions of the government. Not the least because it's almost entirely funded by taxes, which are collected "at gunpoint". > If the state wants to protect children, then it can focus it's efforts on that Because there are other ways to protect children, that doesn't mean stable families shouldn't a social policy goal.
skissane 4y ago
> Because it's the state using it's monopoly on violence Divorce is itself an instance of the state’s “monopoly on violence”. A state agent (a judge) will decide on issues such as property and custody, and then the state’s “monopoly on violence” will be used to enforce that judicial decision. “At gunpoint” even. Or else, the parties may reach an agreement, a settlement - coerced by the threat of a judge deciding it if they don’t - and then the “state’s monopoly on violence” will be used to enforce that agreement, and in particular the state’s interpretation of it. Frequently, divorce is forced by the state’s threat of violence on an unwilling spouse. I saw with my own adolescent eyes how my mother used the state’s monopoly of violence to force divorce on my father even when he didn’t want it, and when he was the victim of her adultery-a fact about which the state chose not to care. My father was the victim-and I believe that my siblings and I are victims of her adultery too-my mother the perpetrator-and the state used its monopoly of violence to help her in victimising us. And while I never saw a gun in the whole sorry saga, state agents with guns were only ever a phone call away.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  If you despise the violence the state used to make you and your father miserable, the consistent position would be to advocate for doing away with the state's monopoly on dictating the terms of marriage (and, consequently, divorce) in the first place.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > the consistent position would be to advocate for doing away with the state's monopoly on dictating the terms of marriage (and, consequently, divorce) in the first place. Maybe, but that's not the pragmatic position. In foreseeable future, it's unlikely that you can decouple marriage from the state's legal understanding of it.
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      Marriage has long preceded the existence of the state and organized religion. The state's "legal understanding", as you put it, is fiction. The pragmatic position isn't to cower in fear and ignorance, but deny and disprove the state's dogma.
  - skissane 4y ago
    What exactly are you advocating here? Anarcho-capitalism? The state outsourcing marriage and divorce law to religious groups (as is done in Israel or Lebanon, for example)? “Marriage privatisation”? If we accept the reality that a “monopoly on violence” is the very definition of “the state”, it isn’t unreasonable for people who feel harmed by the state exercising that monopoly in particular ways, to call for it to be exercised differently.
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      I'm advocating for the deinstitutionalization of marriage and divorce. Ideally this would result marriage by individual contract. However beyond deinstitutionalization, I'm not too particular about how marriage should be handled, so long as every relevant party knows what he or she is agreeing to beforehand. > It we accept that a "monopoly on violence" is the very definition of "the state" The state is not itself a monopoly on violence. You're conflating function with identity. The state is a collection of people not substantially different from a corporation in how it is organized. It has many powers outside of violence. All of them are ideally acquired by the consent of the governed and and yet limited by the rule of the law and the respect of individual rights. > It isn't unreasonable for people who feel harmed by the state exercising that monopoly in particular ways, to call for it to be exercised differently. You can call for it. But why would expect your views to be accepted without scrutiny. Your position lacks consistency. Initially, your complaint stemmed from harms perpetrated by the state. Now, you say that the state has a right to deploy its violence, but in manner that would have benefitted you and your father. You're engaging in a contradiction. If you desire a Hobbesian legal system, then you must accept in all cases that victory is justice and weakness is sin and not just when the outcome suits you.

by XorNot 4y ago

cato_the_elder 4y ago

> Because it's the state using it's monopoly on violence > At gunpoint. You could say that about almost all functions of the government. Not the least because it's almost entirely funded by taxes, which are collected "at gunpoint". > If the state wants to protect children, then it can focus it's efforts on that Because there are other ways to protect children, that doesn't mean stable families shouldn't a social policy goal.

skissane 4y ago

> Because it's the state using it's monopoly on violence Divorce is itself an instance of the state’s “monopoly on violence”. A state agent (a judge) will decide on issues such as property and custody, and then the state’s “monopoly on violence” will be used to enforce that judicial decision. “At gunpoint” even. Or else, the parties may reach an agreement, a settlement - coerced by the threat of a judge deciding it if they don’t - and then the “state’s monopoly on violence” will be used to enforce that agreement, and in particular the state’s interpretation of it. Frequently, divorce is forced by the state’s threat of violence on an unwilling spouse. I saw with my own adolescent eyes how my mother used the state’s monopoly of violence to force divorce on my father even when he didn’t want it, and when he was the victim of her adultery-a fact about which the state chose not to care. My father was the victim-and I believe that my siblings and I are victims of her adultery too-my mother the perpetrator-and the state used its monopoly of violence to help her in victimising us. And while I never saw a gun in the whole sorry saga, state agents with guns were only ever a phone call away.

Dracophoenix 4y ago
If you despise the violence the state used to make you and your father miserable, the consistent position would be to advocate for doing away with the state's monopoly on dictating the terms of marriage (and, consequently, divorce) in the first place.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > the consistent position would be to advocate for doing away with the state's monopoly on dictating the terms of marriage (and, consequently, divorce) in the first place. Maybe, but that's not the pragmatic position. In foreseeable future, it's unlikely that you can decouple marriage from the state's legal understanding of it.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    Marriage has long preceded the existence of the state and organized religion. The state's "legal understanding", as you put it, is fiction. The pragmatic position isn't to cower in fear and ignorance, but deny and disprove the state's dogma.
- skissane 4y ago
  What exactly are you advocating here? Anarcho-capitalism? The state outsourcing marriage and divorce law to religious groups (as is done in Israel or Lebanon, for example)? “Marriage privatisation”? If we accept the reality that a “monopoly on violence” is the very definition of “the state”, it isn’t unreasonable for people who feel harmed by the state exercising that monopoly in particular ways, to call for it to be exercised differently.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    I'm advocating for the deinstitutionalization of marriage and divorce. Ideally this would result marriage by individual contract. However beyond deinstitutionalization, I'm not too particular about how marriage should be handled, so long as every relevant party knows what he or she is agreeing to beforehand. > It we accept that a "monopoly on violence" is the very definition of "the state" The state is not itself a monopoly on violence. You're conflating function with identity. The state is a collection of people not substantially different from a corporation in how it is organized. It has many powers outside of violence. All of them are ideally acquired by the consent of the governed and and yet limited by the rule of the law and the respect of individual rights. > It isn't unreasonable for people who feel harmed by the state exercising that monopoly in particular ways, to call for it to be exercised differently. You can call for it. But why would expect your views to be accepted without scrutiny. Your position lacks consistency. Initially, your complaint stemmed from harms perpetrated by the state. Now, you say that the state has a right to deploy its violence, but in manner that would have benefitted you and your father. You're engaging in a contradiction. If you desire a Hobbesian legal system, then you must accept in all cases that victory is justice and weakness is sin and not just when the outcome suits you.