3 ms·

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, f

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.

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.