# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Adultery

## Christian Liberty

Note that when I say "government" in this thread, I could mean either a minarchist state or competative ancap PDAs and arbitrators, I don't think it really matters for the sake of this particular discussion.  So, if you're an ancap, as I am, assume "government" means some kind of free market civil law alternative.

So I've kind of always just assumed that the libertarian position on adultery was that, regardless of the morality of adultery (I think most of us would say that its immoral, but that's irrelevant), that its an issue that the government should have nothing to do with, and that it should be up to the parties involved to deal with.

I still think that's the correct position, but after debating with a theonomist briefly today, I'm kind of thinking about this from a different angle that I haven't really thought about yet.

Let's assume that government has nothing to do with marriage other than enforcing contracts (libertarians generally believe government should enforce contracts).  Let's say a couple comes up with a contract and make marital vows to forsake all others and stay together until one party should die.

Than one party commits adultery.

Could it be argued that this is fraud, since it is a violation of the agreed upon contract?  Would this fall under contract enforcement, according to libertarian theory?  Why or why not?

----------


## Seraphim

It's only fraud if the adulterer's intent from the start was to cheat. If no, then it's simply breach of contract.

----------


## Seraphim

If deemed fraudulent the fair thing to do is the adulterer gets 0% of assets when they split.

Breach of contract still favors assets towards the "victim" but it's not a surefire thing. Circumstance would influence the divide of assets.

----------


## Intoxiklown

Ask someone who commits adultery how that worked out for them in a divorce hearing. Then ask yourself if there isn't indeed already contract enforcement at the state level for this action.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

It could be punishable.  People can make whatever contracts they wish.  Ideally, the consequence is laid out in the contract.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

The whole marriage "contract" is part of government. The solution is to never get "officially" married, just have the ceremony and that's it. You don't need the government's permission to change your name either. If you need to plead with the government to do something as simple as change your name, you're not a free man. The process of divorce in this country is so $#@!ty I would rather fight in the middle east for a week.

----------


## erowe1

> Would this fall under contract enforcement, according to libertarian theory?


Yes. For the reason that you explained.

----------


## Philhelm

> Ask someone who commits adultery how that worked out for them in a divorce hearing. Then ask yourself if there isn't indeed already contract enforcement at the state level for this action.


So when a woman commits adultery, the man gets custody of the kids, the house, child support, and maintenance...?

----------


## Intoxiklown

> So when a woman commits adultery, the man gets custody of the kids, the house, child support, and maintenance...?


Nowadays, yes. Unless he is stupid, has poor lawyer, ect.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> So when a woman commits adultery, the man gets custody of the kids, the house, child support, and maintenance...?


She can't get a house that has no home insurance and has been burned to the ground

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ask someone who commits adultery how that worked out for them in a divorce hearing. Then ask yourself if there isn't indeed already contract enforcement at the state level for this action.


Oh, I have no doubt regarding current law.  I'm trying to think about it in terms of the NAP and libertarian theory.




> Yes. For the reason that you explained.


Yeah, I think you are right.

----------


## dannno

I don't think that the person who commits adultery is necessarily the person who broke the contract or wedding vows first. Also, it may be difficult to ascertain for certain whether the other person may have committed adultery first and simply not been caught. But even if they didn't, let's say they simply were just really unreasonable and decided to withhold sex from their partner because they did not meet their unreasonable expectations. I don't really see adultery as necessarily immoral, although it certainly can be immoral.

----------


## Acala

> Nowadays, yes. Unless he is stupid, has poor lawyer, ect.


I wouldn't assume that what happens in Alabama can be applied across the country.  Most courts don't give a crap about adultery.

----------


## pcosmar

It is not a "contract" that is enforceable by any human court.



> AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.


Marriage is defined by and subject to God alone..
Please feel free to discuss it with Him.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It is not a "contract" that is enforceable by any human court.
> 
> 
> Marriage is defined by and subject to God alone..
> Please feel free to discuss it with Him.


I understand, but if two people decide to make a marriage contract, then what?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Note that when I say "government" in this thread, I could mean either a minarchist state or competative ancap PDAs and arbitrators, I don't think it really matters for the sake of this particular discussion.  So, if you're an ancap, as I am, assume "government" means some kind of free market civil law alternative.
> 
> So I've kind of always just assumed that the libertarian position on adultery was that, regardless of the morality of adultery (I think most of us would say that its immoral, but that's irrelevant), that its an issue that the government should have nothing to do with, and that it should be up to the parties involved to deal with.
> 
> I still think that's the correct position, but after debating with a theonomist briefly today, I'm kind of thinking about this from a different angle that I haven't really thought about yet.
> 
> Let's assume that government has nothing to do with marriage other than enforcing contracts (libertarians generally believe government should enforce contracts).  Let's say a couple comes up with a contract and make marital vows to forsake all others and stay together until one party should die.
> 
> Than one party commits adultery.
> ...


There would probably be less people marrying each other for financial benefits, and less prospecting beneficiaries. I think the government should get its nose out of all marriage.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There would probably be less people marrying each other for financial benefits, and less prospecting beneficiaries. I think the government should get its nose out of all marriage.


Yes, I agree.  But even if government got out of marriage (as it should) people could still make contracts with each other.  Hence the original question.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Yes, I agree.  But even if government got out of marriage (as it should) people could still make contracts with each other.  Hence the original question.


 people can make contracts if they want between themselves yes, but I doubt it would be common .

----------


## Keith and stuff

> So I've kind of always just assumed that the libertarian position on adultery was that, regardless of the morality of adultery (I think most of us would say that its immoral, but that's irrelevant), that its an issue that the government should have nothing to do with, and that it should be up to the parties involved to deal with.


Agreed. I've never met a libertarian that thought the government should be involved with it. Sadly, this was one of the black eyes on freedom in New Hampshire. Thankfully, a free staters, anarchist, Democrat state rep. sponsored a bill that passed this year and New Hampshire finally got rid of this crap!

I don't care if the Puritans created the law in 1791. I get it, it was historic. Still, it was evil.


Adultery in New England
Love free or die
Time to check into the Motel New Hampshire
Apr 19th 2014 
http://www.economist.com/news/united...ve-free-or-die




> AFTER 223 years New Hampshire is about to make adultery legal. A law in 1791 called for convicted adulterers to be paraded on the gallows for an hour and then publicly whipped not exceeding 39 stripes before being sent to prison and fined £100 (probably more than a years wages in those days).
> 
> The penalty has grown milder since then. Adulterers now face a $1,200 fine, which is not enforced. New Hampshires state House of Representatives voted to repeal the law in February; the state Senate is expected to follow soon. Not everyone is happy. A letter to the Concord Monitor huffed that adultery was repugnant and should remain a crime.
> 
> More than 20 states still have laws against adultery.

----------


## Ender

> The whole marriage "contract" is part of government. The solution is to never get "officially" married, just have the ceremony and that's it. You don't need the government's permission to change your name either. If you need to plead with the government to do something as simple as change your name, you're not a free man. The process of divorce in this country is so $#@!ty I would rather fight in the middle east for a week.


THIS  is the answer.

Gov has no business in marriage; a license for anything was always for something that would otherwise be unlawful. Marriage is not unlawful and neither is driving a car.

The only reason gov got involved with marriage in the first place was to stop interracial marriages.

----------


## William Tell

> I don't care if the Puritans created the law in 1791. I get it, it was historic. Still, it was evil.


Adultery is the evil, woe to those who call good evil, and evil good.




> Love free or die

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Adultery is the evil, woe to those who call good evil, and evil good.


I made no opinion on adultery. I commented on the law. I didn't comment on personal opinions or contracts or anything like that.

Supporting an adultery law is evil. I'd think at least 90% of people and every single liberty person I've ever met in person would agree to that. There is no debate on the issue. Even statists Democrats mostly agree that an adultery law is wrong.

----------


## tod evans

> Nowadays, yes. Unless he is stupid, has poor lawyer, ect.


Bull$#@!!

----------


## William Tell

> There is no debate on the issue.


If you say so 





> Supporting an adultery law is evil.


The Almighty made an adultery law....

----------


## Keith and stuff

> If you say so 
> 
> The Almighty made an adultery law....


I certainly say that I've never met a liberty person in person that supports an Adultery law. I've met 1,000s of liberty people in person and none of them have ever said that someone should be killed if they commit adultery. My guess is almost no one on Earth would support that, even though it was a typical law in the US in the 1700s. If anyone on Earth disagrees with this, please explain why you support the killing of people.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The Almighty made an adultery law....


If He did, He certainly seems lax on enforcement.

----------


## Danke

> I certainly saw that I've never met a liberty person in person that supports an Adultery law. I've met 1,000s of liberty people in person and none of them have ever said that someone should be killed if they commit adultery. My guess is almost no one on Earth would support that, even though it was a typical law in the US in the 1700s. If anyone on Earth disagrees with this, please explain why you support the killing of people.


It should be left up to the husband to decide.

----------


## pcosmar

> I understand, but if two people decide to make a marriage contract, then what?


If two people decide what..?

God ordains Marriage.. Not the State.. nor any group of people.

Now,  if you get some state sanctioned contract,,, that is what you have.
 It is not a marriage. (unless God says it is)

----------


## idiom

> If He did, He certainly seems lax on enforcement.


He just couldn't find anyone who hadn't broken the law to enforce it.

----------


## thoughtomator

Traditional marriage under law creates a legal union between man and wife - together, they are a single, unified legal person - a recognition that they are supposed to be also one in flesh and spirit. Adultery as a crime has a victim in the marriage unity, which is betrayed by the adulterer. Without the concept of unity in marriage the concept of adultery is a non-sequitur.

----------


## William Tell

> I certainly saw that I've never met a liberty person in person that supports an Adultery law. I've met 1,000s of liberty people in person and none of them have ever said that someone should be killed if they commit adultery. My guess is almost no one on Earth would support that, even though it was a typical law in the US in the 1700s. If anyone on Earth disagrees with this, please explain why you support the killing of people.


Just talking about the 10 Commandments, they are God's law, I never said anything about killing anyone.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I certainly saw that* I've never met a liberty person in person that supports an Adultery law.* I've met 1,000s of liberty people in person and none of them have ever said that someone should be killed if they commit adultery. My guess is almost no one on Earth would support that, even though it was a typical law in the US in the 1700s. If anyone on Earth disagrees with this, please explain why you support the killing of people.


Does your definition of "liberty person" preclude any who support adultery laws?

BTW: I don't support adultery laws, but the position I was presenting here was regarding the enforcement of contracts.  I don't think the penalty for contract violation is death or imprisonment

----------


## idiom

> I don't think the penalty for contract violation is death or imprisonment


Why not?

----------


## DamianTV

Leave me out of this one!  Im not a grown up, Im an _Adultolescent_!  Wait, that still doesnt count, does it?  :P

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why not?


Well, I would think if a contract is violated the person who was on the other side of the contract should be compensated.  I mean, that would make the most sense to me,.

----------


## euphemia

I suppose a couple could create a mutual agreement where they jointly own assets and that contract is sealed by an exclusive and regular sexual union.  The agreement would be broken by sexually uniting with someone else, or by choosing not to engage in sex.  The one who violates the terms of the agreement would lose everything.

But if there is an agreement, there has to be someone who adjudicates the agreement if there is a breach.  This doesn't have to be a government, necessarily, but at least a neutral third party.

----------


## otherone

> I suppose a couple could create a mutual agreement where they jointly own assets and that contract is sealed by an exclusive and regular sexual union.  The agreement would be broken by sexually uniting with someone else, or by choosing not to engage in sex.  The one who violates the terms of the agreement would lose everything.

----------


## idiom

Sex, it like the only thing religious people think about. They are obsessed with copulation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sex, it like the only thing religious people think about. They are obsessed with copulation.


If you look at my posting history here, I don't discuss sexual topics particularly often.

----------


## William Tell

Modern America is obsessed with sex, almost all jokes I hear are sexual.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sex, it like the only thing religious people think about. They are obsessed with copulation.


Everyone only thinks about sex, comrade.  Particularly in the US.  I'm not sure why, though.

----------


## LogCabinGOProud

> It should be left up to the husband to decide.


What if there are two husbands?

----------


## pcosmar

> Sex, it like the only thing religious people think about. They are obsessed with copulation.


Has nothing to do with religion.. It has to do with being Human.
I have been obsessed since I was about 6.

----------


## Acala

I think marriage should be a death pact.  The rules are spelled out and if anyone breaks them, they consent to be killed by the other person.

----------


## presence

> I think marriage should be a death pact.  The rules are spelled out and if anyone breaks them, they consent to be killed by the other person.


Yikes.  Don't try picking up chicks at the bar with that line.

----------


## FindLiberty

> What if there are two husbands?


LOL, or two wives...

----------


## jllundqu

> So when a woman commits adultery, the man gets custody of the kids, the house, child support, and maintenance...?


BOOM!  And there is a truth bomb!  lol...

Ain't it the truth....

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> Yikes.  Don't try picking up chicks at the bar with that line.


if you pick up chicks at the bar probability they are the kind of girl that will stay with you is 1%

----------


## Seraphim

Because it's a civil affair not a criminal/violent one.




> Why not?

----------

