3 ms·

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 m

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.

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.